Floyd Lamb State Park

darkdragondarkdragon Registered Users Posts: 1,051 Major grins
edited February 23, 2009 in Landscapes
I was so excited to find this place, I didn't know it existed. I have been going to the local large city park but really bored with it and so many of the animals are extremely scraggly (?) looking. :dunno So last weekend I started looking online to find some new place and found Floyd Lamb which is a State Park that is now managed by the City. What a beautiful place, I'm excited for spring now!

There are 4 ponds surrounded by grassy hills and full of ducks and other fowl - and fish. I've already seen a few things in one outing here that I've never seen in the park (birds and ducks that I hadn't seen before).

Here are a few of my favorite shots landscape style. It was very overcast that day (and all weekend days since!), I'm going back out when there is sun and blue sky on a weekend again. C&C welcome.

1. Looking over one of the ponds towards the snowcapped mountains.
474435351_QLDyn-L-2.jpg

2. Another one of the ponds.
479479326_7rTLJ-L-1.jpg

3. This place was a farm in the 30's/40's and the state and city have preserved a number of the old buildings.
479480596_fKfWW-L-1.jpg


Do these look undexposed to you?
~ Lisa

Comments

  • jeffmeyersjeffmeyers Registered Users Posts: 1,535 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2009
    I'm not sure if they are underexposed or not. But the lighting sure does seem to be flat. Perhaps you could work on the contrast and dynamic range a bit with some post processing.

    Take #1 for example. I applied a few adjustments to the image and got this:

    479703597_VqhvN-L.jpg

    This is probably a lot closer to what you "saw" when you captured the image. You have the original file so you have a lot more data to work with. I think a few simple adjustments like this on each of these would improve them greatly.
    More Photography . . . Less Photoshop [. . . except when I do it]
    Jeff Meyers
  • darkdragondarkdragon Registered Users Posts: 1,051 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2009
    jeffmeyers wrote:
    I'm not sure if they are underexposed or not. But the lighting sure does seem to be flat. Perhaps you could work on the contrast and dynamic range a bit with some post processing.

    Take #1 for example. I applied a few adjustments to the image and got this:



    This is probably a lot closer to what you "saw" when you captured the image. You have the original file so you have a lot more data to work with. I think a few simple adjustments like this on each of these would improve them greatly.

    Thanks Jeff. Your edit looks pretty nifty, I really like the pop. Surprisingly because the light was so flat my photo is exactly what I recall seeing, with the horrible flat lighting. I will play with the original file and see if i can get it to pop as well as you did.
    ~ Lisa
Sign In or Register to comment.