Neath at Night

Paul Saunders said:

wildwales.fsnet.co.ukneath.htmlOpen ↗

For those interested in the technical details, it was a 30
second exposure at f11 at ISO 100. I reduced the contrast
during the raw processing and boosted it later in PS,
using both Curves and the USM radius 250 technique. I also
altered the white balance during the raw processing to
give it a colder look. I think I set it to 4000K or
thereabouts. This toned down the orange glow from the
streetlights to give a bluer sky. Saturation was not
increased.

Nice photo - I'm guessing that this photo would only be
possible with raw mode.

Apparantly my Olympus C4000 camera can be put into a
diagnostic mode which saves out raw files along with the jpg
- Time for some experiemnts, I think!

Quoted message said:

I'm also experimenting with a new page design for my
images. I'm still not happy with the image title and I may
invert the logos at the top to give black on white rather
than white on black. Any comments or suggestions?

Perhaps have a dark background to your webpage? In the
picture above the light background makes the image look
darker than it possibly is.

regards

--
Brian

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| Until I get my Purbeck pics online

I'll have grown a beard by then! :-)

| you might like to take a look at this shot I took last
| night during a stroll up Mynydd Drumau. It was an overcast
| day so I just went out for a bit of exercise rather than
| to take photos, but when I reached the standing stone
| Careg Bica on the summit plateau I was treated to an
| unexpected and very nice sunset. Naturally I always take
| my camera so there were no worries there.

Any chance of seeing a shot of the nice sunset Paul?

| Before I started my descent in twilight I was treated to a
| very pretty show of urban lights in the valley below, with
| some scenic trees on the plateau edge to add interest. I
| hadn't brought a decent tripod but I did have my teeny
| little bendy pod so I managed to find some half decent
| positions on grass and on a wall where I could take some
| long exposures.
|
| I shot a variety of scenes using different trees and
| compositions, and in the end I chose this one, the very
| last shot I took. Unlike the much prettier trees in the
| other shots this tree is in a very sorry state, stripped
| of most of its branches. Although the other trees looked
| better, this was the best overall composition IMO. The
| stripped tree adds a stark bleakness to the scene I think.
|
| wildwales.fsnet.co.ukneath.htmlOpen ↗
|
| For those interested in the technical details, it was a 30
| second exposure at f11 at ISO 100. I reduced the contrast
| during the raw processing and boosted it later in PS,
| using both Curves and the USM radius 250 technique. I also
| altered the white balance during the raw processing to
| give it a colder look. I think I set it to 4000K or
| thereabouts. This toned down the orange glow from the
| streetlights to give a bluer sky. Saturation was not
| increased.

A nice shot Paul, and perhaps this is a taster for an urban
style you could experiement with?

| I'm also experimenting with a new page design for my
| images. I'm still not happy with the image title and I may
| invert the logos at the top to give black on white rather
| than white on black. Any comments or suggestions?

As Brian said, I'd prefer a darker background, and possible
a plain black one. I just think that light or whate
backgrounds draw the eye away from the picture. But this is
completely subjective, and it's your site of course. My
personal preferences will come into play when I get my own
site up and running!

One 'proper' suggestion though, is to reduce the size of the
photo slightly, so that I don't have to scroll down to see
the credits and stats counter at the bottom. I'm using a 17"
monitor and 1024 x 768 resolution (the most widely used
resolution). I can see up to "Neath seen from Mynydd Drumau
after sunset," but have to scroll for the rest. Just an
idea, and for your website, it might be preferable to have a
popup window to show your images, that doesn't include all
the Internet Explorer navigation bars etc, as with:
www.tommackie.co.uk (but with larger images of course!)

Ste

| Paul
| --
| wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
| wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
| photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗
|
|

Brian said:

Nice photo - I'm guessing that this photo would only be
possible with raw mode.

Not really, the straight jpeg version doesn't look that
different. Colour temperature/white balance could be altered
in PS using Curves or Levels, but it would be more hit and
miss, you'd have to judge it purely by eye. When converting
from raw I can set specific white balance settings
(daylight/cloudy/shade/tungsten etc.) or even specify colour
temperatures, so it gives more precise control.

As for the contrast, converting from raw does allow a wider
dynamic range, so you can claw back detail from the
highlights and shadows that you thought were over or under-
exposed in the original picture (which would have been with
a jpeg), and in this particular case I recovered a lot of
detail in the shadow areas. However, the result looked too
light and flat for my liking so I ended up boosting the
contrast a lot, losing all the detail in the tree and other
very dark areas of the picture, so the end result didn't
look that different from the original. But I had the
advantage that I was able to control the contrast adjustment
so I could choose what detail to lose and what to retain and
could set the tonal curve to my liking.

It's all about control. If you like to do a lot of post
processing in
PS, it pays to do a bit of pre processing with the raw file
first. Pre processing gives you a better initial image to
work with and doing everything in 16 bit mode helps
prevent banding and general image degradation. Making big
adjustments to a jpeg can have nasty effects.

Quoted message said:

Apparantly my Olympus C4000 camera can be put into a
diagnostic mode which saves out raw files along with the
jpg - Time for some experiemnts, I think!

Have you got the necessary software to convert those
raw files?

Quoted message said:

Perhaps have a dark background to your webpage?

To be honest I don't like dark backgrounds, I find it harder
on the eyes to read the text. I rather like the textured
paper effect that I've used.

Quoted message said:

In the picture above the light background makes the image
look darker than it possibly is.

Perhaps it does, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
Looking at the image in ACDSee with a black background I
prefer the web page version. I've used a black and white
border around the image which frames it and helps to isolate
it from the page background. I've looked at many images with
this black/white framing and it seems to work well for all
sorts of pics, both dark and light.

I originally used a much thicker black border but thought it
might be overkill and made it a lot thinner. Any opinions on
this? (If you want to experiment, save the page and alter
the frame border size around the image - it's currently set
to 8, it was previously 12.)

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

stemc © said:

Quoted message said:

Until I get my Purbeck pics online

I'll have grown a beard by then! :-)

Actually the page layout and design is what's taking the
time. You did say you wanted to see an example of the
new layout.

Quoted message said:

Any chance of seeing a shot of the nice sunset Paul?

Um, okay, give me a mo...

Quoted message said:

A nice shot Paul, and perhaps this is a taster for an
urban style you could experiement with?

Could be, now you mention it. Plenty of urban areas in
amongst the hills of South Wales (i.e. the coalfield not
the Beacons).

Quoted message said:

As Brian said, I'd prefer a darker background, and
possible a plain black one.

Not another one! ;-)

Actually I've just tried it and I think it looks "absolutely
disgusting!" (Barry Welsh viewers will know the correct tone
of voice for that phrase.)

No really, I just don't like dark backgrounds. They look
appealing initially but I find them harder on the eyes when
you spend a lot of time reading white text on a black
background. The traditional black on white may be a bit
boring, but it makes for easier reading IMO. I've chosen a
white paper texture because it looks better than plain
white. I could use a slightly darker white texture, i.e.
light grey.

Quoted message said:

I just think that light or whate backgrounds draw the eye
away from the picture. But this is completely subjective,

Yes. I happen to think completely the opposite, I think the
white background makes a dark picture stand out more, while
a dark background suits light pictures better IMO. Since I
hate white skies I think most of my pics tend toward dark
rather than light. I've looked at the Neath photo with a
black and white background and it looks much better with the
white background IMO.

Besides, as I said, I've used a frame with a black/white
border to help isolate the pic from the background and I
think it works well with a variety of pics. It certainly
looks better to view a photo on a nicely laid out page than
viewing in the browser window with a plain background. More
work creating the pages of course, but it also makes it
possible to get web stats on the pics to see which pics are
most popular.

Quoted message said:

and it's your site of course.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

One 'proper' suggestion though, is to reduce the size of
the photo slightly, so that I don't have to scroll down to
see the credits and stats counter at the bottom. I'm using
a 17" monitor and 1024 x 768 resolution (the most widely
used resolution). I can see up to "Neath seen from Mynydd
Drumau after sunset," but have to scroll for the rest.

Actually I'm pretty happy with my image sizes now. I've
decided on a standard image width of 720 pixels with a frame
width of 750 pixels, which fits the width of an 800 x 600
resolution nicely. I'm not so worried about the vertical
size, scrolling down is a fact of life in web browsing.

The Neath pic is 720 x 480 since the format ratio is 3:2,
but my 4:3 ratio pics from the G3 will be 720 x 540, which
should still be fully visible in 1024 x 728, even if you
have to scroll down a little. Vertical format photos will be
more of a problem. I'd like to restrict the length of the
long side of the photo to 720, so vertical shots will be 480
x 720 or 540 x 720, so scrolling will be unavoidable for
those. Even so, if you save the images and view them with a
browser like Irfan View or ACDSee, they will all be fully
visible within a 1024 x 768 resolution.

As for square images, I could shrink them down to 480 x 480
but I think they'd look a lot more impressive at 720 x 720,
even if you have to scroll down. My Horizon panos would work
out at 720 x 300, which is a nice size and format (2.4:1)
for a pano, and even a 3:1 pano would still look okay at 720
x 240. Anything wider than 3:1 tends to look too thin
IMO.

As for your comments on not being able to see all the text
at the bottom, please bear in mind that many images will
have a lot more text underneath them, so this one is not
typical. Scrolling will be unavoidable for images with
lots of text.

I want to design a "one size fits all" layout for my image
pages, so that I can simply save it as a template and throw
new images into it to quickly create new pages. I don't want
to mess about with different page layouts for differently
shaped images. At the end of the day, if you just want to
look at the images it's best to save them and view them with
a dedicated image browser.

Quoted message said:

Just an idea, and for your website, it might be preferable
to have a popup window to show your images, that doesn't
include all the Internet Explorer navigation bars etc, as
with: www.tommackie.co.uk (but with larger images of
course!)

Well thanks for the suggestion, but I really can't stand pop
up windows!

Sorry if my reactions seem negative, but my mind is pretty
much made up about some aspects of my new page designs, in
particular the big details. I'm more interested in comments
about the smaller details of the styling, like the choice of
font (arial, tahoma or trebuchet), font sizes, colours and
styles (do you like the look of the dark red Trebuchet in
italic bold at size 5 for example?), table design, general
layout and so on.

But thanks for the suggestions anyway. Even if I don't agree
it's still nice to know what people think.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

stemc © said:

Any chance of seeing a shot of the nice sunset Paul?

No sooner said than done!
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukbica.htmlOpen ↗

A couple of points of interest. Although my 300D captured
all the shadow detail in the foreground, which I could
easily brighten if desired, I chose instead to darken it for
the traditional silhouette type shot. Also there was a bit
too much dark land so I cropped a bit off the bottom of the
photo. I decided to use the golden mean ratio
(1.618:1) which resulted in dimensions of 720 x 445 pixels.
I think the golden mean format looks very nice,
don't you?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

please bear in mind that many images will have a lot more
text underneath them,

Speaking of which, how much text would you like to see
accompanying each image? I could include information in four
main areas;

1. Subject info. Geographical or historical info on the
subject matter seen in the photograph, useful for
those intending to visit the area or interested in
the history.

2. Walk info. Background on the actual circumstances
experienced when taking the photo, like a tiny section
of a trip report.

3. Artistic info. Comments on the creative thinking behind
the photo, how I wanted to compose it, how I wanted to
represent it and so on.

4. Technical info. Exposure details, processing info and so
on, for those interested in taking something similar.

All of the above would probably be overkill and I doubt I'd
have the time or inclination to write that much detail
about every photo. Perhaps it would be better to simply
provide a title and leave it at that? Anyone got any
opinions about this?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Brian said:

Nice photo - I'm guessing that this photo would only be
possible with raw mode.

<snip interesting information about raw>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apparantly my Olympus C4000 camera can be put into a
diagnostic mode which saves out raw files along with the
jpg - Time for some experiemnts, I think!

Have you got the necessary software to convert those
raw files?

Soon! I'm going to switch linux distros this weekend (from
Fedora to Gentoo), then I'm going to install the raw photo
plugin for gimp & dcraw.

cybercom.netdcrawOpen ↗

May need a further stage in the processing chain, as far as
I can see, the "raw" mode doesn't save out proper "raw"
images. Still its a very very nice "feature", although using
it does violate the camera's warranty (you change the camera
ID string from "OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA" to "DIAG RAW" - Only
a problem if the camera returns for warranty repairs with
the ID string "DIAG RAW"!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps have a dark background to your

webpage?

Quoted message said:

To be honest I don't like dark backgrounds, I find it
harder on the eyes to read the text. I rather like the
textured paper effect that I've used.

Each to their own - I personally prefer dark backgrounds.

regards

--
Brian

Brian said:

Quoted message said:

Have you got the necessary software to convert those
raw files?

Soon! I'm going to switch linux distros this weekend (from
Fedora to Gentoo), then I'm going to install the raw photo
plugin for gimp & dcraw.

Good luck.

Quoted message said:

May need a further stage in the processing chain, as far
as I can see, the "raw" mode doesn't save out proper "raw"
images. Still its a very very nice "feature", although
using it does violate the camera's warranty (you change
the camera ID string from "OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA" to
"DIAG RAW" - Only a problem if the camera returns for
warranty repairs with the ID string "DIAG RAW"!

Daft!

Quoted message said:

Each to their own - I personally prefer dark backgrounds.

I wonder how many other people do. I've experimented again
with dark and light backgrounds with a variety of pictures
and I definitely prefer light, I think it makes the pics
look better, although I may instead opt for a slightly
darker shade of white, i.e. light grey, so that the page
background isn't too bright.

Experimenting with different colour backgrounds in ACDSee
I found that a neutral/light grey seemed to look best
(well better than white or black) with the majority of
images. Photoshop uses a grey background too, probably
with good reason.

The important thing though is the frame border, a thin white
line surrounded by a thicker black line (although Netscape
doesn't show it quite like that). This separates the image
from the rest of the page. The effect is actually very
similar to the mounts I'm using in my framed prints. They
are double mounts, a standard cream coloured mount on top
with a black mount below, giving a black border around the
print separating it from the cream mount around. The 45
degree angle cut of the black mount gives a thin white line
within the black, so the net effect is almost the same as on
the page, but with the white paper texture instead of the
cream mount.

I think I'll enlarge the black border, it looks too thin to
me. Not sure about using a cream coloured page though. Would
you prefer a neutral shade background or a slightly colour
tinted one?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A nice shot Paul, and perhaps this is a taster for an
urban style you could experiement with?

<AOL>

Quoted message said:

Could be, now you mention it. Plenty of urban areas in
amongst the hills of South Wales (i.e. the coalfield not
the Beacons).

There certainly are! Have you ever stood at the pull in
on Bwlch y Clawdd and looked down on Cwmparc and Treorci
by night? It's stunning, not least because the Parc And
Dare theatre (former miners' institute) is floodlit and
stands out beautifully against the more ordinary street
and house lights.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| > Any chance of seeing a shot of the nice sunset Paul?
|
| No sooner said than done!
| wildwales.fsnet.co.ukbica.htmlOpen ↗

Very efficient! :-) And very nice of course.

| A couple of points of interest. Although my 300D captured
| all the shadow detail in the foreground, which I could
| easily brighten if desired, I chose instead to darken it
| for the traditional silhouette type shot.

Yes, the silhouette works well against that fiery sky.

| Also there was a bit too much dark land so I cropped a bit
| off the bottom of the photo.

Yes, if it's not adding anything to the photo, then there's
no point having it all there...

| I decided to use the golden mean ratio
| (1.618:1) which resulted in dimensions of 720 x 445
| pixels. I think the golden mean format looks
| very nice, don't you?

...unless you want to keep some of it to anchor the photo,
or have a pleasant image ratio. Yes, this ratio of this
image looks very nice Paul. ;-)

| Paul

Ste

stemc © said:

Very efficient! :-) And very nice of course.

Ta.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also there was a bit too much dark land so I cropped a
bit off the bottom of the photo.

Yes, if it's not adding anything to the photo, then
there's no point having it all there...

Well it might have added something if I'd lightened the
foreground. Before cropping it was more or less a rule of
thirds split.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I decided to use the golden mean ratio
(1.618:1) which resulted in dimensions of 720 x 445
pixels. I think the golden mean format looks
very nice, don't you?

...unless you want to keep some of it to anchor the photo,
or have a pleasant image ratio. Yes, this ratio of this
image looks very nice Paul. ;-)

A bit wider than the usual 3:2 ratio of 35mm and DSLRs.

To put it in perspective, a digital compact produces an
image ratio of
12:9 (same as a computer monitor), 35mm and DSLRs produce
12:8 and the golden mean produces 12:7.4. Actually it's
very close to 13:8

It would be very nice to have lines inside the viewfinder to
help compose to specific ratios like that. I find it
difficult to visualise any other ratio than what I see
through the viewfinder.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

There certainly are! Have you ever stood at the pull in
on Bwlch y Clawdd and looked down on Cwmparc and Treorci
by night? It's stunning, not least because the Parc And
Dare theatre (former miners' institute) is floodlit and
stands out beautifully against the more ordinary street
and house lights.

You forgot the burning car lights :-)

Richard Webb

Fran said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A nice shot Paul, and perhaps this is a taster for an
urban style you could experiement with?

<AOL>

AOL? Sorry, a look on the acronym sites doesn't leave me any
the wiser.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could be, now you mention it. Plenty of urban areas in
amongst the hills of South Wales (i.e. the coalfield not
the Beacons).

There certainly are! Have you ever stood at the pull in
on Bwlch y Clawdd and looked down on Cwmparc and Treorci
by night?

Can't say I have. I'll make a note of it.

Are you available anytime soon so I can bring that tent up
to you? Spring is/will be here shortly so you might actually
have some use for it soon. Be nice to socialise and chat
anyway. Email me, I've got petrol in the tank. ;-)

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

RJ Webb said:

You forgot the burning car lights :-)

Ah yes, there were some nice curvy star streaks in some of
the Neath shots I took.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There certainly are! Have you ever stood at the pull in
on Bwlch y Clawdd and looked down on Cwmparc and Treorci
by night? It's stunning, not least because the Parc And
Dare theatre (former miners' institute) is floodlit and
stands out beautifully against the more ordinary street
and house lights.

You forgot the burning car lights :-)

No I didn't - they're up on the hill *behind* where I'm
standing, see? Not down there in the valley. Blasted
hooligans.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Fran said:

Quoted message said:

> A nice shot Paul, and perhaps this is a taster for an
> urban style you could experiement with?

<AOL>

AOL? Sorry, a look on the acronym sites doesn't leave me
any the wiser.

That's because it's not on there in that sense. It's NG-
speak for 'me too', or 'ditto'.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Could be, now you mention it. Plenty of urban areas in
amongst the hills of South Wales (i.e. the coalfield
not the Beacons).

There certainly are! Have you ever stood at the pull in
on Bwlch y Clawdd and looked down on Cwmparc and Treorci
by night?

Can't say I have. I'll make a note of it.

Even Penrhys was looking surreally interesting this
evening. Visibility (looking up) was down to pretty
nearly nothing because of the mist and rain, so the hill
on which the estate perches couldn't be seen at all. The
effect was of a whole load of lights like a sort of badly
coloured in elipse, floating in the sky looking for all
the world like a UFO. And of course even if I'd had my
camera with me it wouldn't have come out, because it's
not that sort of camera.

Quoted message said:

Are you available anytime soon so I can bring that tent
up to you?

Yes. When do you want to bring it? Not this weekend because
we've got visitors so we'll mostly be out, but most other
times there can be someone in. I only need a day's notice to
make sure I'm here in the week.

Quoted message said:

Spring is/will be here shortly so you might actually have
some use for it soon.

First weekend in April we're going to be camping. It'd be
nice to have one tent instead of a whole settlement :-)

Quoted message said:

Be nice to socialise and chat anyway. Email me, I've got
petrol in the tank. ;-)

OK, will do.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

RJ Webb said:

You forgot the burning car lights :-)

Ah yes, there were some nice curvy star streaks in some of
the Neath shots I took.

I think Richard was thinking more of external combustion
engines than internal ones :-)

Quoted message said:

More likely to have been behind the Bwlch up at Werfa.
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

es I realised that later. Don't know why I included the
word star in my sentence. Must have been the alcohol.

LOL
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Be nice to socialise and chat anyway. Email me, I've got
petrol in the tank. ;-)

OK, will do.

You have email.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.