Amusements...

[windoze]

taken at hershey park, lots of amusements....
BTW, I soent considerable time trying to make the sky, clouds come out right with litttle / no post processing.


a slow amusement......

http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34612598-M.jpg


a fast amusement ...

http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34612602-M.jpg


a wet amusement ...

http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34613118-M.jpg

a wooden amusement......

http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34612601-M.jpg

a crazy amusement ..........

http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34612600-M.jpg




a baby coaster amusement ....


http://windoze.smugmug.com/photos/34613411-M.jpg
troy

[marlof]

Nice pictures Troy, they make me want to visit the place myself.

I spent considerable time trying to make the sky, clouds come out right with little / no post processing.
It worked well, since the skies do look nice. But you didn't think you'd get away with it that easy, now did you? :wink Now what exactly did you *do* to get such great looking skies without major blown highlights, and still have well lit foregrounds? May be other people can learn from your "spending considerable time".

[rutt]

I admired the exposure of these before I actually read your words about getting the sky right. I was going to make some comment about how good a job you did with midday exposures. I think this works especially well for the crazy and wooden amusements where the sky and strong dark shapes in the foregound play the key role. These are really fine images as they are.

In the other shots, I want to see more shadow detail, and if they were mine, I'd consider some of the usual work in post to bring it out.

[windoze]

two words, decrease EC by as much as -1 2/3 and watching the Histogram ( that's actually a lot more then two words ) I also shot in raw in case I had to "fix" the exposure..... I also made sure the sun was not infront of me or directly ontop of me and lastly I tried something I saw Andy doing last week ( but i still dont understand why ). instead of focusing on the object in the background which was my subject, i focused on something about 2/3 of the way towards the background..... Used at least F/8.0.
if anybody wants to explain why i should or shouldnt do this im listening.....


troy
Nice pictures Troy, they make me want to visit the place myself.


It worked well, since the skies do look nice. But you didn't think you'd get away with it that easy, now did you? :wink Now what exactly did you *do* to get such great looking skies without major blown highlights, and still have well lit foregrounds? May be other people can learn from your "spending considerable time".

[marlof]

Thanks for the explanation, Troy!

As for the focusing things: it's using the hyperfocal distance (http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html). See the DOFMaster site (http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html) for more info, calculators and what not.

[ginger_55]

Thanks, that is a huge EC compensation, for a sky, imo, almost like you were shooting a white bird.:rofl .

I have been doing that focus thing since I first starting doing photography as an adult, in the seventies. I read about it. Makes sense, but so I do it. I used to use the preview button a lot. Now with all this cheap film, I am pretty lazy, so I focus in several places, bring them all home and see which worked.

ginger (I love amusement park photos, and those are good ones.)

[windoze]

thanx rutt, not sure what u mean by "usual work in post" ??

whatcha have in mind??

troy

I admired the exposure of these before I actually read your words about getting the sky right. I was going to make some comment about how good a job you did with midday exposures. I think this works especially well for the crazy and wooden amusements where the sky and strong dark shapes in the foregound play the key role. These are really fine images as they are.

In the other shots, I want to see more shadow detail, and if they were mine, I'd consider some of the usual work in post to bring it out.

[rutt]

thanx rutt, not sure what u mean by "usual work in post" ??

whatcha have in mind??

troy

Some shadow/highlight followed by curves to readjust the contrast. It's a very rare shot that doesn't benefit at least a little from this if applied with a light enough touch. When there is a lot detail in the shadows, sometimes playing with the black curve in CMYK can help hold it. If you have Dan Margulis' "Professional Photoshop", see chapter 7.