TR - Malham, Yorkshire Dales

ste © <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...

I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend - our longest walk in a long time! (about 7km,
which is probably tiny for some of you people!) We left the house about 12:30pm which was later
than I would have liked, but I just couldn't wake up this morning. We got to Malham at about 2pm.

[....]

Quoted message said:

The walk then went towards Gordale Scar, but it just started to rain as we got there - so this was
the time to put the camera back in the bag (so no photos of this), and fasten my Berghaus and put
my hood up! Luckily, the rain only lasted about 5 or 10 minutes, and we headed up hill towards
Malham Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗

I hope you didn't miss out the easy scramble through the scar, and get a look at the waterfall
coming out of the rocks further up? That's usually considered the highlight of the walk, a classic,
IMO. Then after climbing out of the valley you head to the car park and ice cream van, then turn
left down past Water Sinks, down through the 'dry valley' and come out on top of the Cove. Perhaps
that's what you did? [....]

Quoted message said:

I didn't feel comfortable walking down steps like these, so next time I visit Malham, I will walk
the route in the opposite direction so I walk *up* the steps, as I'll then feel safer. As we were
carefully walking down the million or so steps, there were another bunch of school children
behind us, and I could hear the cheers as some of their classmates slipped on the steps and fell
on their bums - a chilling reminder to be even more careful due to this audience! :o)

Those steps are deadly after rain, with all the boots spreading mud, and I've had a slip on them!
However, they must be soul-destroying to climb, and only the tourists do that usually!
--
Gordon

"ste ©" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...

I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend - our longest walk in

a

Quoted message said:

long time! (about 7km, which is probably tiny for some of you people!) We left the house about
12:30pm which was later than I would have liked, but

I

Quoted message said:

just couldn't wake up this morning. We got to Malham at about 2pm.

We did more or less the same route as Steve and Roger had suggested in my recent post, but rather
than using my printed map from

walkingbritain.co.uk,

Quoted message said:

we bought a leaflet from the Visitor Centre called 'Malham Landscape

Trail,'

Quoted message said:

and followed this route and map instead (more or less the same anyway).

The route started from the Visitor centre, then along the Pennine Way path towards Janet's Foss
waterfall. On the way, we walked past a few cows: sm9.co.ukcows.jpgOpen ↗ and also
went past a stone hut that

had

Quoted message said:

a sheep in the doorway (not seen in the photo): sm9.co.ukhut.jpgOpen ↗ When we got to
the waterfall, it was nice and quiet with nobody around, so we sat down and ate our sandwiches.
After the sandwiches, I was going to set my tripod up to try and take some waterfall shots to give
Paul Saunders some sleepless nights! :o) ...but a minute later, a big group of school children
came around the corner and raided the waterfall, taking measurements of rocks and all sorts! So my
waterfall shots went out the window, and I was stood there thinking 'that will teach me to not
take my photos straight away in future...' :-( Just for the record (and a [censored] photo), I took this
shot when there were *only two* people stood in my way: sm9.co.ukjanetsfoss.jpgOpen ↗

The walk then went towards Gordale Scar, but it just started to rain as we got there - so this was
the time to put the camera back in the bag (so no photos of this), and fasten my Berghaus and put
my hood up! Luckily, the rain only lasted about 5 or 10 minutes, and we headed up hill towards

Malham

Quoted message said:

Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗

Once there, we carefully walked along the limestone pavement:
sm9.co.uklimestonepavement.jpgOpen ↗ After stopping to take

a

Quoted message said:

number of photos, we then walked down the slippery and steep steps to the foot of the cove:
sm9.co.uksteps.jpgOpen ↗. I didn't feel comfortable walking down steps like these, so
next time I visit Malham, I will walk the route in the opposite direction so I walk *up* the
steps, as I'll then feel safer. As we were carefully walking down the million or so steps, there
were another bunch of school children behind us, and I could hear the cheers as some of their
classmates slipped on the steps and fell

on

Quoted message said:

their bums - a chilling reminder to be even more careful due to this audience! :o)

We then walked along the path that ran aside Malham Beck, and here is a photo of this from the
limestone pavement at the top of Malham Cove: sm9.co.ukmalhambeck.jpgOpen ↗ This path
led back to the main village, where I took a photo of some sheep in the field:
sm9.co.uksheep.jpgOpen ↗ ...and this then led to the Visitor Centre, where my car was
waiting in the car park for me.

All together, we walked about 7km, which took us 3 hours and 20 minutes -

I

Quoted message said:

know this is slow, but it included stopping to eat our packed lunches, and includes me stopping to
take 70 photos with my digital camera, about a quarter of which were taken using the tripod (so
more time still).

Anyway, that's my first trip report, and is my walking contribution to

this

Quoted message said:

walking group! :o)

Next time I get some time off work during the week, I'd like to visit the Lake District as that's
only a hour drive from where I live. If anyone

has

Quoted message said:

a step by step walking route to recommend in this area, then be sure to point me to the link
please, thanks.

Regards,

Stephen

Hi Stephen , Excellent trip report & photos , I thought the sky in the sheep photo was superb . We
did a similar walk in the area back in June taking in Gordale Scar , I've got some photos of the
trip on my website if you're interested on .

mysite.freeserve.commalham.htmOpen ↗

Looking forward to your next report & photos . Graham .

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ste © <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...

I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend - our longest walk

in a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

long time! (about 7km, which is probably tiny for some of you people!)

We

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

left the house about 12:30pm which was later than I would have liked, but

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just couldn't wake up this morning. We got to Malham at about 2pm.

[....]

Quoted message said:

The walk then went towards Gordale Scar, but it just started to rain as

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

got there - so this was the time to put the camera back in the bag (so no photos of this), and
fasten my Berghaus and put my hood up! Luckily, the rain only lasted about 5 or 10 minutes, and
we headed up hill towards

Malham

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗

I hope you didn't miss out the easy scramble through the scar, and get a look at the waterfall
coming out of the rocks further up? That's usually considered the highlight of the walk, a
classic, IMO. Then after climbing out of the valley you head to the car park and ice cream van,
then turn left down past Water Sinks, down through the 'dry valley' and come out on top of the
Cove. Perhaps that's what you did?

It started to rain as we were heading towards Gordale Scar, and when we did get to it, there was
another large group of school children there. So we walked as far as we could on the path, looked,
but never climbed any of the rocks I'm afraid, due to the rain combined with school kids. But that
will be for another day for sure.

I don't remember seeing an ice cream van, but we did climb up towards the top of Malham Cove, and we
walked along the limestone pavement. I don't remember seeing the Water Sinks though?

Quoted message said:

[....]

Quoted message said:

I didn't feel comfortable walking down steps like these, so next time I visit Malham, I will
walk the route in the opposite direction so I walk *up* the steps,

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll then feel safer. As we were carefully walking down the million or

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

steps, there were another bunch of school children behind us, and I could hear the cheers as some
of their classmates slipped on the steps and fell

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their bums - a chilling reminder to be even more careful due to this audience! :o)

Those steps are deadly after rain, with all the boots spreading mud, and I've had a slip on them!
However, they must be soul-destroying to climb, and only the tourists do that usually!

The steps were damp, but as there were a few puddles in places, it made our trainers wet (sorry, no
proper walking boots yet!) and it was like ice! For me, we can either walk up the steps and down the
hill from the Limestone Pavement, or do as we did, walk *up* to the top of Malham Cove (that was
hard work for an inexperienced walker like myself!), and down the steps. Either way, we've got to go
up hill somewhere, so I'll go for safety first next time, and I'm a tourist anyway so I should fit
in nicely! ;o)

Quoted message said:

--
Gordon

Thanks,

Stephen

"Graham Jackman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| "ste ©" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
| > Hi there,
| >
| > I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...
| >
| > I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend - our longest walk
in
| a
| > long time! (about 7km, which is probably tiny for some of you people!)
We
| > left the house about 12:30pm which was later than I would have liked,
but
| I
| > just couldn't wake up this morning. We got to Malham at about 2pm.
| >
| > We did more or less the same route as Steve and Roger had suggested in
my
| > recent post, but rather than using my printed map from
| walkingbritain.co.uk,
| > we bought a leaflet from the Visitor Centre called 'Malham Landscape
| Trail,'
| > and followed this route and map instead (more or less the same anyway).
| >
| > The route started from the Visitor centre, then along the Pennine Way
path
| > towards Janet's Foss waterfall. On the way, we walked past a few cows:
| > sm9.co.ukcows.jpgOpen ↗ and also went past a stone hut that
| had
| > a sheep in the doorway (not seen in the photo): sm9.co.ukhut.jpgOpen ↗ When we got
| > to the waterfall, it
was
| > nice and quiet with nobody around, so we sat down and ate our
sandwiches.
| > After the sandwiches, I was going to set my tripod up to try and take
some
| > waterfall shots to give Paul Saunders some sleepless nights! :o) ...but
a
| > minute later, a big group of school children came around the corner and raided the waterfall,
| > taking measurements of rocks and all sorts! So my waterfall shots went out the window, and I was
| > stood there thinking
'that
| > will teach me to not take my photos straight away in future...' :-(
Just
| > for the record (and a [censored] photo), I took this shot when there were
*only
| > two* people stood in my way: sm9.co.ukjanetsfoss.jpgOpen ↗
| >
| > The walk then went towards Gordale Scar, but it just started to rain as
we
| > got there - so this was the time to put the camera back in the bag (so
no
| > photos of this), and fasten my Berghaus and put my hood up! Luckily,
the
| > rain only lasted about 5 or 10 minutes, and we headed up hill towards
| Malham
| > Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
| > sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗
| >
| > Once there, we carefully walked along the limestone pavement:
| > sm9.co.uklimestonepavement.jpgOpen ↗ After stopping to
take
| a
| > number of photos, we then walked down the slippery and steep steps to
the
| > foot of the cove: sm9.co.uksteps.jpgOpen ↗. I didn't feel comfortable walking down
| > steps like these, so next time I visit Malham,
I
| > will walk the route in the opposite direction so I walk *up* the steps,
as
| > I'll then feel safer. As we were carefully walking down the million or
so
| > steps, there were another bunch of school children behind us, and I
could
| > hear the cheers as some of their classmates slipped on the steps and
fell
| on
| > their bums - a chilling reminder to be even more careful due to this audience! :o)
| >
| > We then walked along the path that ran aside Malham Beck, and here is a photo of this from the
| > limestone pavement at the top of Malham Cove: sm9.co.ukmalhambeck.jpgOpen ↗ This
| > path led back to the
main
| > village, where I took a photo of some sheep in the field: sm9.co.uksheep.jpgOpen ↗
| > ...and this then led to the
Visitor
| > Centre, where my car was waiting in the car park for me.
| >
| > All together, we walked about 7km, which took us 3 hours and 20
minutes -
| I
| > know this is slow, but it included stopping to eat our packed lunches,
and
| > includes me stopping to take 70 photos with my digital camera, about a quarter of which were
| > taken using the tripod (so more time still).
| >
| > Anyway, that's my first trip report, and is my walking contribution to
| this
| > walking group! :o)
| >
| > Next time I get some time off work during the week, I'd like to visit
the
| > Lake District as that's only a hour drive from where I live. If anyone
| has
| > a step by step walking route to recommend in this area, then be sure to point me to the link
| > please, thanks.
| >
| > Regards,
| >
| > Stephen
| >
| >
| Hi Stephen , Excellent trip report & photos , I thought the sky in the sheep photo was superb . We
| did a similar walk in the area back in June taking in Gordale Scar , I've got some photos of the
| trip on my website if you're interested on .
|
| mysite.freeserve.commalham.htmOpen ↗
|
| Looking forward to your next report & photos . Graham .

Hi Graham,

Thanks for your kind words, it's my first report so I just tried to explain what I did and where I
went, but I don't know the area that well, so it looks as though I missed out a few nice features!
Never mind, I'll get them next time! ;o)

I enjoyed looking at your photos too, and it was nice to see some of the places that I missed
(climbing up/down Gordale Scar, and Malham Tarn).

Also, I was very impressed with your photos from the Lakes recently! I might go there myself in the
next few weeks, so that could be my next report. ;o)

Thanks,

Ste

Quoted message said:

I don't remember seeing an ice cream van, but we did climb up towards the top of Malham Cove, and
we walked along the limestone pavement. I don't remember seeing the Water Sinks though?

Sounds like you walked from the start of Gordale Scar NW on the path that crosses the road out of
Malham parallel to Gordale Scar over Shorkley Hill to the Cove.

The 'official' tourist circular route continues into Gordale Scar where you would have had to
scramble up a small waterfall, hard to miss really!! The path then goes nearly to the end of
Mastiles Lane then the road and a track to Malham Tarn.

The water sinks are at the top of the dry valley (is that a bit obvious!!) at about SD 894656 ish.
The normal way to get to them is on the Pennine Way which goes from the ice cream van at the gate
near the tarn to the top of the cove. Rest of the route is as you did.

The whole route is above 10 - 11km.

Cheers

Andy

"]news:[email hidden]...
| > I don't remember seeing an ice cream van, but we did climb up towards
the
| > top of Malham Cove, and we walked along the limestone pavement. I don't remember seeing the
| > Water Sinks though?
|
| Sounds like you walked from the start of Gordale Scar NW on the path that crosses the road out of
| Malham parallel to Gordale Scar over Shorkley Hill to the Cove.
|
| The 'official' tourist circular route continues into Gordale Scar where
you
| would have had to scramble up a small waterfall, hard to miss really!! The path then goes nearly
| to the end of Mastiles Lane then the road and a
track
| to Malham Tarn.
|
| The water sinks are at the top of the dry valley (is that a bit obvious!!) at about SD 894656 ish.
| The normal way to get to them is on the Pennine
Way
| which goes from the ice cream van at the gate near the tarn to the top of the cove. Rest of the
| route is as you did.
|
| The whole route is above 10 - 11km.
|
| Cheers
|
| Andy

Hi Andy,

I've just thought, why don't I scan the route on so you can see exactly what I did... ;o)

...check this out: sm9.co.ukmalhammap.jpgOpen ↗

We walked anti-clockwise along this route, following the orange line, which the booklet says is
"about 7km," and time allowed is "3 hours."

Regards,

Ste

ste © said:

I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...

About time too! ;-)

Quoted message said:

I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend

Quoted message said:

On the way, we walked past a few cows: sm9.co.ukcows.jpgOpen ↗

Animals always seem to have their back to you, don't they? Is that a two-headed cow?

Quoted message said:

and also went past a stone hut that had a sheep in the doorway (not seen in the photo):
sm9.co.ukhut.jpgOpen ↗

A tighter crop would have been nice, I'd cut off most of the grass in the foreground and the half
tree on the right hand side.

Quoted message said:

When we got to the waterfall, it was nice and quiet with nobody around, so we sat down and ate our
sandwiches. After the sandwiches, I was going to set my tripod up to try and take some waterfall
shots to give Paul Saunders some sleepless nights! :o)

Not from that angle you won't!

Quoted message said:

...but a minute later, a big group of school children came around the corner and raided the
waterfall, taking measurements of rocks and all sorts! So my waterfall shots went out the window,
and I was stood there thinking 'that will teach me to not take my photos straight away in
future...' :-(

This is something I learnt a long time ago, if you see something worth taking, take it straight away
while you still can. Never assume that the scene will stay as it is. Even if the light doesn't
change, other things can.

Quoted message said:

Just for the record (and a [censored] photo), I took this shot when there were *only two* people stood
in my way: sm9.co.ukjanetsfoss.jpgOpen ↗

The less said about that one the better... :-(

Quoted message said:

headed up hill towards Malham Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗

That one's quite pleasant, nice snaking walls. Too much grass in the foreground though, I'd like to
have seen more of the interesting clouds above. Don't take that rule of thirds rule too literally,
people get hung up on that rule, compose it whichever way works best for the scene.

Quoted message said:

Once there, we carefully walked along the limestone pavement:
sm9.co.uklimestonepavement.jpgOpen ↗

Now that's an excellent shot! I really like that one, your best of the day. Great light, textures,
clouds etc. That would make a nice print.

Quoted message said:

After stopping to take a number of photos, we then walked down the slippery and steep steps to the
foot of the cove: sm9.co.uksteps.jpgOpen ↗. I didn't feel comfortable walking down
steps like these, so next time I visit Malham,

Take some trekking poles!

Quoted message said:

We then walked along the path that ran aside Malham Beck, and here is a photo of this from the
limestone pavement at the top of Malham Cove: sm9.co.ukmalhambeck.jpgOpen ↗

That's an interesting shot, a good candidate for contrast masking. I'd probably have turned the
camera very slightly to the left (but without cutting out the faint path to the right) and tilted it
down more. But it's easy to say things like that when you look at other people's photos, there may
have been reasons for you not doing that.

Quoted message said:

This path led back to the main village, where I took a photo of some sheep in the field:
sm9.co.uksheep.jpgOpen ↗

I thought that was a photo of an amazing sky with some boring sheep in the foreground! ;-) I'd like
to have seen a lot more of that sky. You could have cut out the bottom third of the photo completely
(everything below the wall) in order to include much more of the sky, and if you'd taken another
shot to the right you could have stitched them together to make a cloud panorama. Did you take any
more shots of that sky? Good potential there.

Quoted message said:

All together, we walked about 7km, which took us 3 hours and 20 minutes - I know this is slow,

Not by my standards! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Anyway, that's my first trip report, and is my walking contribution to this walking group! :o)

Nice one!

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ste © said:

I thought I'd post my first trip report, so here it is...

About time too! ;-)

Quoted message said:

I went for a walk in Malham today with my girlfriend

Quoted message said:

On the way, we walked past a few cows: sm9.co.ukcows.jpgOpen ↗

Animals always seem to have their back to you, don't they? Is that a two-headed cow?

Yes, it's a Siamese cow. :o) ...I know, I thought it was only one cow when I first looked at the
image on my PC, but the shadow gives it away. If it were just one cow, I've have printed an A3
print of that photo because I like it otherwise. But as it is, it almost one of those optical
illusions! :o)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and also went past a stone hut that had a sheep in the doorway (not seen in the photo):
sm9.co.ukhut.jpgOpen ↗

A tighter crop would have been nice, I'd cut off most of the grass in the foreground and the half
tree on the right hand side.

Yes, it's so obvious now that you mention it. I guess I'm just getting caught up in the rule of
thirds a bit too much to see these cropping improvements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When we got to the waterfall, it was nice and quiet with nobody around, so we sat down and ate
our sandwiches. After the sandwiches, I was going to set my tripod up to try and take some
waterfall shots to give Paul Saunders some sleepless nights! :o)

Not from that angle you won't!

Hey, if it were empty of people, and it the water levels were a bit higher, I'd have took time in
that location and came up with something. ;o) As is it, this seems to be my only decent waterfall
shot so far: usefilm.com181797.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...but a minute later, a big group of school children came around the corner and raided the
waterfall, taking measurements of rocks and all sorts! So my waterfall shots went out the
window, and I was stood there thinking 'that will teach me to not take my photos straight away
in future...' :-(

This is something I learnt a long time ago, if you see something worth taking, take it straight
away while you still can. Never assume that the scene will stay as it is. Even if the light
doesn't change, other things can.

Yes, a big problem I've had when seeing something is thinking "I'll get that shot on the way back."
Of course, the shot never happens. I'll take everything a bit quicker in future.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just for the record (and a [censored] photo), I took this shot when there were *only two* people stood
in my way: sm9.co.ukjanetsfoss.jpgOpen ↗

The less said about that one the better... :-(

I know, admittedly [censored], and displayed here just for a complete trip report and as a
record shot. :-(

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

headed up hill towards Malham Cove. Here is a photo looking back as we headed this way:
sm9.co.uktowardsmalhamcove.jpgOpen ↗

That one's quite pleasant, nice snaking walls. Too much grass in the foreground though, I'd like
to have seen more of the interesting clouds above. Don't take that rule of thirds rule too
literally, people get hung up on that rule, compose it whichever way works best for the scene.

Yes, I am getting caught up in this rule of thirds. I'll try and think a bit more in future, rather
than being so robotic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once there, we carefully walked along the limestone pavement:
sm9.co.uklimestonepavement.jpgOpen ↗

Now that's an excellent shot! I really like that one, your best of the day. Great light, textures,
clouds etc. That would make a nice print.

Really? I'm guessing you mean compared to my other photos then! ;o) I personally thought there was
too much black in this shot, but funnily enough, I did an A4 borderless print of this image on the
Epson C84 a few weeks ago, and I did the same image on the Epson 2100 to compare. The 2100 version
was very slightly better (not by much though, and certainly not £400 better!), but the main
different is that the limestone pavement on the 2100 looked like the rocks as I seen them, whereas
the C84 had a bluish cast to them and they looked a bit strange.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After stopping to take a number of photos, we then walked down the slippery and steep steps to
the foot of the cove: sm9.co.uksteps.jpgOpen ↗. I didn't feel comfortable walking
down steps like these, so next time I visit Malham,

Take some trekking poles!

Good idea, but not for me at this time. I'll put them on the "one day..." list, together with
monopods, head torches, and big wooly socks that are tucked over trousers... :o)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We then walked along the path that ran aside Malham Beck, and here is a photo of this from the
limestone pavement at the top of Malham Cove: sm9.co.ukmalhambeck.jpgOpen ↗

That's an interesting shot, a good candidate for contrast masking. I'd probably have turned the
camera very slightly to the left (but without cutting out the faint path to the right) and tilted
it down more. But it's easy to say things like that when you look at other people's photos, there
may have been reasons for you not doing that.

I composed the shot so the path and water would start from the bottom left corner, and work their
way through the image. The colours on the left are bit bright because the sun was just coming over
some hills on the right, so the hills were casting a shadow on half the scene.

All these photos look a bit [censored] to be honest, they look far better in full resolution version. I
think I've done autolevels or autocolour on them, reduced them in size, and applied a bit of unsharp
mask, but I'll have to fine a better way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This path led back to the main village, where I took a photo of some sheep in the field:
sm9.co.uksheep.jpgOpen ↗

I thought that was a photo of an amazing sky with some boring sheep in the foreground! ;-) I'd
like to have seen a lot more of that sky. You could have cut out the bottom third of the photo
completely (everything below the wall) in order to include much more of the sky, and if you'd
taken another shot to the right you could have stitched them together to make a cloud panorama.
Did you take any more shots of that sky? Good potential there.

Yes, I do have others, but the foreground just looked [censored], with walls and telegraph poles in the
way. I'll have another look and post any that look interesting. I just liked the sheep in the field
with the sky in the background, but as you say, when I got home, I noticed that the balance of the
sky was wrong, as it looks as though half of it is missing to the right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All together, we walked about 7km, which took us 3 hours and 20 minutes - I know this is slow,

Not by my standards! ;-)

Yes, stopping and taking photos takes up so much time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, that's my first trip report, and is my walking contribution to this walking group! :o)

Nice one!

Thanks, now back to photography in future... :o)

Quoted message said:

Paul

Ste

ste © said:

Yes, it's so obvious now that you mention it. I guess I'm just getting caught up in the rule of
thirds a bit too much to see these cropping improvements.

The rule of thirds is way over-rated. Forget about it, dare to be different!

How many other compositional rules do you know, by the way? There are loads of them. Many people
only seem to know the rule of thirds and apply it religously to every photo.

Quoted message said:

Hey, if it were empty of people, and it the water levels were a bit higher, I'd have took time in
that location and came up with something. ;o) As is it, this seems to be my only decent waterfall
shot so far: usefilm.com181797.htmlOpen ↗

And very nice that is too.

Quoted message said:

Yes, a big problem I've had when seeing something is thinking "I'll get that shot on the way
back." Of course, the shot never happens.

It never looks the same on the way back.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The less said about that one the better... :-(

I know, admittedly [censored], and displayed here just for a complete trip report and as a record
shot. :-(

For that purpose it's fine.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I am getting caught up in this rule of thirds. I'll try and think a bit more in future,
rather than being so robotic.

I find that the hardest thing is fitting the interesting stuff in the picture without getting any
distracting details on the edges of the frame. Things like cutting a rock in half or getting half a
tree or half a cloud on the edge look very disconcerting. I'd say that's probably the hardest thing
about composition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now that's an excellent shot!

Quoted message said:

Really?

Yep. I Iike it.

Quoted message said:

I composed the shot so the path and water would start from the bottom left corner, and work their
way through the image. The colours on the left are bit bright because the sun was just coming over
some hills on the right, so the hills were casting a shadow on half the scene.

Try contrast masking on it.

Quoted message said:

All these photos look a bit [censored] to be honest, they look far better in full resolution version. I
think I've done autolevels or autocolour on them, reduced them in size, and applied a bit of
unsharp mask, but I'll have to fine a better way.

Here are my current workflow techniques

1. Load RAW image, 16 bits per channel
2. Neat Image (to remove grain or noise if necessary)
3. Auto-levels (brightness only, not colour)
4. Curves (to brighten or darken slightly, if necessary)
5. Reduce to 8 bits per channel
6. Contrast mask (try it on every photo, if it doesn't work, ditch it)
7. USM (for boosting local contrast)
8. Saturation (slight increase if your photo is dull)
9. Save as "master" file - TIFF (8 bits per channel)

Keep the master file safe, and don't sharpen it.

To print;

10. Load master file
11. Adjust print parameters (300dpi?)
12. Resize if necessary, possibly using Genuine Fractals
13. Sharpen for printing (more than you usually would for web viewing)
14. Save as "print" file - TIFF (8 bits per channel)

Use this file for printing, but don't delete the master file. If you decide to change anything
later, go back to the master to make the change, then produce a new print file from it. You may need
to produce more than one print file for best printing results at different sizes.

For web;

15. Load master file
16. Resize for web
17. Sharpen for web
18. Save as "web" file - JPEG (max quality)
19. Resize for thumbnail
20. Sharpen thumbnail
21. Save as "thumbnail" file - JPEG (max quality)
22. Load both files into JPEG Optimizer to reduce file size for web. (Or you could just save at a
lower quality.)

I strongly recommend Focus Magic for sharpening.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I do have others, but the foreground just looked [censored], with walls and telegraph poles in the
way. I'll have another look and post any that look interesting. I just liked the sheep in the
field with the sky in the background, but as you say, when I got home, I noticed that the balance
of the sky was wrong, as it looks as though half of it is missing to the right.

Classic problem of trying to get too much into a photograph, it's often best to concentrate on just
one thing. If you concentrated on the sky and used the rule of tenths (nine-tenths sky) you could
turn the ground completely black and just make a good sky photo. Perhaps better to photograph the
sheep on a different day in different light, the background sky is too overpowering.

But of course, you could try contrast masking to bring out the sheep.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003 - Updated
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Yes, it's so obvious now that you mention it. I guess I'm just getting caught up in the rule of
| > thirds a bit too much to see these cropping improvements.
|
| The rule of thirds is way over-rated. Forget about it, dare to be different!
|
| How many other compositional rules do you know, by the way? There are loads of them. Many people
| only seem to know the rule of thirds and apply it religously to every photo.

None! But the rule of thirds usually gives nicely balanced photos.

| > Yes, I am getting caught up in this rule of thirds. I'll try and think a bit more in future,
| > rather than being so robotic.
|
| I find that the hardest thing is fitting the interesting stuff in the picture without getting any
| distracting details on the edges of the frame. Things like cutting a rock in half or getting half
| a tree or half a cloud on the edge look very disconcerting. I'd say that's probably the hardest
| thing about composition.
|
| > I composed the shot so the path and water would start from the bottom left corner, and work
| > their way through the image. The colours on the left are bit bright because the sun was just
| > coming over some hills on the right, so the hills were casting a shadow on half the scene.
|
| Try contrast masking on it.

I will do.

| > All these photos look a bit [censored] to be honest, they look far better in full resolution version.
| > I think I've done autolevels or autocolour on them, reduced them in size, and applied a bit of
| > unsharp mask, but I'll have to fine a better way.
|
| Here are my current workflow techniques

Ahh, thanks, this is just the type of thing I was after.

| 1. Load RAW image, 16 bits per channel
| 2. Neat Image (to remove grain or noise if necessary)
| 3. Auto-levels (brightness only, not colour)
| 4. Curves (to brighten or darken slightly, if necessary)
| 5. Reduce to 8 bits per channel
| 6. Contrast mask (try it on every photo, if it doesn't work, ditch it)
| 7. USM (for boosting local contrast)
| 8. Saturation (slight increase if your photo is dull)
| 9. Save as "master" file - TIFF (8 bits per channel)
|
| Keep the master file safe, and don't sharpen it.
|
| To print;
|
| 1. Load master file
| 2. Adjust print parameters (300dpi?)
| 3. Resize if necessary, possibly using Genuine Fractals
| 4. Sharpen for printing (more than you usually would for web viewing)
| 5. Save as "print" file - TIFF (8 bits per channel)
|
| Use this file for printing, but don't delete the master file. If you decide to change anything
| later, go back to the master to make the change, then produce a new print file from it. You may
| need to produce more than one print file for best printing results at different sizes.
|
| For web;
|
| 1. Load master file
| 2. Resize for web
| 3. Sharpen for web
| 4. Save as "web" file - JPEG (max quality)
| 5. Resize for thumbnail
| 6. Sharpen thumbnail
| 7. Save as "thumbnail" file - JPEG (max quality)
| 8. Load both files into JPEG Optimizer to reduce file size for web. (Or you could just save at a
| lower quality.)
|
| I strongly recommend Focus Magic for sharpening.

Do you deliberately sharpen for the web twice?

Thanks again for these work flows, they're really helpful. I'll try and follow them myself, rather
than doing things in a random way.

| > Yes, I do have others, but the foreground just looked [censored], with walls and telegraph poles in
| > the way. I'll have another look and post any that look interesting. I just liked the sheep in
| > the field with the sky in the background, but as you say, when I got home, I noticed that the
| > balance of the sky was wrong, as it looks as though half of it is missing to the right.
|
| Classic problem of trying to get too much into a photograph, it's often best to concentrate on
| just one thing. If you concentrated on the sky and used the rule of tenths (nine-tenths sky) you
| could turn the ground completely black and just make a good sky photo. Perhaps better to
| photograph the sheep on a different day in different light, the background sky is too
| overpowering.

Yes, I wish I had just had a silhouette landscape now, and 9/10th's sky. That's one for next time...

| But of course, you could try contrast masking to bring out the sheep.

Just so happens that I've dug out the other images I took. One of them was so dark that i thought it
was completely lost. But after just applying a contrast mask, flattening, then applying another
contrast mask, I've at least gont something that's usable.

Here is the original image: sm9.co.uksheepsky.jpgOpen ↗ Here is the 2 x contrast mask
image: sm9.co.uksheepskycm.jpgOpen ↗

One problem I've noticed with the contrast masking is that the image gets slightly noisier each
time. But you can't have it all! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

ste © said:

None! But the rule of thirds usually gives nicely balanced photos.

Yes, but these rules aren't really rules at all, they're just guidelines, to help beginners get a
clue. The rule of thirds is a good starting point, but most real world scenes don't divide perfectly
into thirds, so divide them differently, whatever suits the scene best. If the rule of thirds causes
you to cut out something interesting or add something boring, then break it.

Here's a few sites I just found with a few rules on them;

groups.msn.comrulesofcomposition.msnwOpen ↗
azuswebworks.comph comp.htmlOpen ↗
bluedigital.usPhotography Composition.htmlOpen ↗
photomigrations.com0209300.htmOpen ↗

And here's one with loads of rules. I haven't looked through this properly yet but it looks quite
interesting. I could do with a refresher myself. This is aimed at art rather than photography, but
maybe that's why it's more in depth. The same principles apply.
wetcanvas.com120Open ↗

I used to have a book with tons of rules in it, can't remember what happened to it, but it was a
good list. I'd like to find a similar list on the net.

Quoted message said:

Do you deliberately sharpen for the web twice?

It doesn't make much difference. When you resize an image downwards the effect of sharpening is
usually lost, so it needs to be sharpened again anyway. I've tried undoing the sharpening then
resizing but it rarely makes much difference. It would make a difference if the resizing is very
small, but if you make a big change to the image size the difference is neglible. If anything,
sharpening the image before downsizing may result in a slightly sharper looking image, but there
won't be any artefacts from the previous sharpening, they are lost in the interpolation.

Quoted message said:

Thanks again for these work flows, they're really helpful. I'll try and follow them myself, rather
than doing things in a random way.

Tell me how you get on. Of course, these are only guidelines. Certain images require certain special
adjustments, so you have to do these on a case by case basis, but that workflow works for most
images. Note that many of the steps are optional, like boosting saturation for example. I rarely
ever do that, but if I do it will be near the end, since adjusting levels and contrast and so on can
alter saturation.

Quoted message said:

Here is the original image: sm9.co.uksheepsky.jpgOpen ↗ Here is the 2 x contrast mask
image: sm9.co.uksheepskycm.jpgOpen ↗

Yep, that's the idea.

Quoted message said:

One problem I've noticed with the contrast masking is that the image gets slightly noisier each
time. But you can't have it all! ;o)

That's because the darker parts of the picture have less detail in them (as my tests a little while
back demonstrated), so the more you lighten dark parts of the picture the worse they look.

This problem is compounded by the fact that you can only use layers in 8 bit mode. When you
convert to 8 bit you lose a lot of detail, and this becomes very obvious if you brighten shadows a
lot. It would degrade less if you could do it in 16 bit mode, which I think the latest version of
Photoshop can do.

One way around this is to use layer masking instead of contrast masking. Start by making a duplicate
image (in 16 bit mode), then brighten the duplicate image so that the shadows are as bright as you
want them. Don't worry about the highlights overexposing. Then you need to convert both images to 8
bit mode and copy one to the other as a layer. You then need to create a selection to differentiate
the dark and light parts of the picture and apply a layer mask to blend the two together.

I haven't explained that process completely, and it's a bit more fiddly and time consuming than
contrast masking, but it will give a better quality result if you really need it - for example if
you want to make a high quality print.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003 - Updated
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > None! But the rule of thirds usually gives nicely balanced photos.
|
| Yes, but these rules aren't really rules at all, they're just guidelines, to help beginners get a
| clue. The rule of thirds is a good starting point, but most real world scenes don't divide
| perfectly into thirds, so divide them differently, whatever suits the scene best. If the rule of
| thirds causes you to cut out something interesting or add something boring, then break it.

I know they're not set in stone, but they usually work okay. But like I said below, I'll try not to
be so robotic about these rules in future.

| Here's a few sites I just found with a few rules on them;
|
| groups.msn.comrulesofcomposition.msnwOpen ↗
| azuswebworks.comph comp.htmlOpen ↗
| bluedigital.usPhotography Composition.htmlOpen ↗
| photomigrations.com0209300.htmOpen ↗
|
| And here's one with loads of rules. I haven't looked through this properly yet but it looks quite
| interesting. I could do with a refresher myself. This is aimed at art rather than photography, but
| maybe that's why it's more in depth. The same principles apply.
| wetcanvas.com120Open ↗

Thanks for these links, much appreciated. I'll check them out shortly - 2am isn't the best time if I
want them to sink in! :o) Glad to see that a pro like yourself is taking the time to help a snapper!
;o) <kind of meant as a joke, but I'm seriously grateful for all the help>

| I used to have a book with tons of rules in it, can't remember what happened to it, but it was a
| good list. I'd like to find a similar list on the net.

I'll go through the links above, and if I come across anything else that may be of use, I'll return
the favour of course by posting the links.

| > Do you deliberately sharpen for the web twice?
|
| It doesn't make much difference. When you resize an image downwards the effect of sharpening is
| usually lost, so it needs to be sharpened again anyway. I've tried undoing the sharpening then
| resizing but it rarely makes much difference. It would make a difference if the resizing is very
| small, but if you make a big change to the image size the difference is neglible. If anything,
| sharpening the image before downsizing may result in a slightly sharper looking image, but there
| won't be any artefacts from the previous sharpening, they are lost in the interpolation.

Okay thanks, I'll have a play with the different ways and just see from trial and error for some of
my images.

| > Thanks again for these work flows, they're really helpful. I'll try and follow them myself,
| > rather than doing things in a random way.
|
| Tell me how you get on. Of course, these are only guidelines. Certain images require certain
| special adjustments, so you have to do these on a case by case basis, but that workflow works for
| most images. Note that many of the steps are optional, like boosting saturation for example. I
| rarely ever do that, but if I do it will be near the end, since adjusting levels and contrast and
| so on can alter saturation.

I was just doing my first borderless A3 print, and in the end, I went for the cow photo I posted
here: sm9.co.ukcows.jpgOpen ↗ I just like this image for some reason, so it will go on
the wall when it dries tomorrow. It's just finished printing now, and the quality looks great - from
about 30cm it looks excellent! I am very impressed and it's far better than I was hoping for from
A3, even after all the assurances I heard from you about your A3 prints. There's nothing like seeing
it with your own eyes...

I followed your general print workflow, but with one or two tiny changes in order (I hope I've
remembered everything correctly):

1. Load Large Superfine JPEG image (no RAW file saved, dammit)
2. Apply Contrast Mask (blur radius of 250 pixels)
3. Flatten image
4. Apply Unsharp Mask to boost contrast (radius of 250 pixels)
5. Apply Auto Levels
6. Save image as Genuine Fractals file, then close.
7. Open Genuine Fractals file with Photoshop, and resize to A3 - width of 42cm at 300dpi.
8. Save image and close.
9. Open image with Neat Image to remove noise, then save and close.
10. Open image with Photoshop, and use the Focus Magic plugin to sharpen the image.
11. A quick check of image at 200%, just to check the sky for stray bits of noise and fix with
clone tool.
12. Save, and then print image as borderless A3, using Epson 2100 and Epson Premium Photo
Glossy paper.
13. Leave print to dry for 24 hours.
14. Frame it!
15. Hang it on wall! :o)

| > Here is the original image: sm9.co.uksheepsky.jpgOpen ↗ Here is the 2 x contrast
| > mask image: sm9.co.uksheepskycm.jpgOpen ↗
|
| Yep, that's the idea.

I thought that dark photo was lost, so I have a good feeling that there will be some other photos
from within the archives that I can now rescue, thanks! :o)

| > One problem I've noticed with the contrast masking is that the image gets slightly noisier each
| > time. But you can't have it all! ;o)
|
| That's because the darker parts of the picture have less detail in them (as my tests a little
| while back demonstrated), so the more you lighten dark parts of the picture the worse they look.

Yes, I remember something about this in your tests.

| This problem is compounded by the fact that you can only use layers in 8 bit mode. When you
| convert to 8 bit you lose a lot of detail, and this becomes very obvious if you brighten shadows a
| lot. It would degrade less if you could do it in 16 bit mode, which I think the latest version of
| Photoshop can do.

The new Photoshop looks quite good for digital photographers, it's got plenty of other useful new
features too that I read about on dpreview.com.

| One way around this is to use layer masking instead of contrast masking. Start by making a
| duplicate image (in 16 bit mode), then brighten the duplicate image so that the shadows are as
| bright as you want them. Don't worry about the highlights overexposing. Then you need to convert
| both images to 8 bit mode and copy one to the other as a layer. You then need to create a
| selection to differentiate the dark and light parts of the picture and apply a layer mask to blend
| the two together.
|
| I haven't explained that process completely, and it's a bit more fiddly and time consuming than
| contrast masking, but it will give a better quality result if you really need it - for example if
| you want to make a high quality print.

Yes, when you used to talk about Contrast Masking, I thought it was similar to what you've descibed
above, which can be a bit fiddly and requires a bit more time. But the Contrast Masking is very easy
to do, and I've set up an action like you recommended, and assigned the F12 funtion key to it, so
it's just one click away for all my images now. I think I'll set up a similar action for the Unsharp
Mask contrast boost too...

| Paul

Thanks again Paul,

Ste

ste © said:

I followed your general print workflow, but with one or two tiny changes in order (I hope I've
remembered everything correctly):

1. Load Large Superfine JPEG image (no RAW file saved, dammit)
2. Apply Contrast Mask (blur radius of 250 pixels)
3. Flatten image
4. Apply Unsharp Mask to boost contrast (radius of 250 pixels)
5. Apply Auto Levels

I usually apply Levels first, just doing auto-contrast, not auto-levels. The latter changes the
colour balance but in most cases (i.e. digital) it's not necessary to alter the colour. Unlike film
(which can suffer from slightly different colour casts, digital colour is very consistent.

Applying auto-contrast first, before switching from 16 bit per channel to 8 bit, minimises quality
degredation. However, one good reason for doing USM contrast boosting before auto-levels is that
boosting the contrast with USM can cause slight over or underexposure of very bright or dark pixels,
if the contrast boost is high.

Quoted message said:

6. Save image as Genuine Fractals file, then close.
7. Open Genuine Fractals file with Photoshop, and resize to A3 - width of 42cm at 300dpi.
8. Save image and close.
9. Open image with Neat Image to remove noise, then save and close.

I'm no expert on Neat Image yet, but I don't think that applying it after using GF is a good idea.
I'm still not sure when is the best time to apply it, but I'm pretty sure it should be done before
GF. The reason is that noise (or film grain) is a pretty regular thing, and Neat Image works by
identifying the pattern and removing it. When you use GF you convert the image to vector information
and resizing it causes the image to be reconstructed differently, thus breaking up the regular
noise/grain pattern.

I think NI should probably be applied immediately, before any other adjustments. Once you start
messing about with an image, particularly if you do different things to different parts of the
picture, the noise/grain pattern becomes less regular, so NI is probably less effective. I haven't
done any definitive tests but it seems logical that it should be applied sooner rather than later.

Quoted message said:

10. Open image with Photoshop, and use the Focus Magic plugin to sharpen the image.

I find that FM is very subtle when used properly, the effect is not so blatant as the conventional
USM. This is fine for on screen viewing but for printing I've found that sometimes it helps to
overdo it. You know how FM often auto-detects a large radius that looks obviously wrong? Try making
a print with that setting and you might be suprised (try a small test print first). Provided you
print at 300dpi what looks horrible on the screen can look good on a print, but it depends on the
photo, it doesn't work with everything.

The thing about printing at 300dpi is that horrible artefacts, like the white line you get on the
horizon when you sharpen an image too much (with USM or FM) are printed so small that they aren't
visible to the naked eye, instead you get a very sharp looking horizon. If you printed at a lower
dpi, say 150-200, the white line would be visible and look horrible. So that's a big advantage of
printing at 300dpi, you can sharpen more without the result looking [censored] (even though it might look
[censored] on the screen). That's why you should always leave the sharpening until last, after you resize
to a larger size for printing.

Quoted message said:

11. A quick check of image at 200%, just to check the sky for stray bits of noise and fix with
clone tool.
12. Save, and then print image as borderless A3, using Epson 2100 and Epson Premium Photo Glossy
paper.

Have you tried the Premium Semigloss yet? Excellent paper. By the way, the "Premium Glossy Photo
Paper" (is that what you meant?) is not one of the four recommended papers for the 2100. The glossy
paper that's specifically designed for it is called "Glossy Paper - Photo Weight" (unless they've
changed the name since - they've changed the name of Archival Matte Paper). How much difference
there is I don't know, but due to the different nature of the pigment inks I think it's probably
best to use one of the specific papers specified for the printer.

If you look closely at the sample supplied, the Glossy Paper - Photo Weight surface is not
completely smooth, it almost looks like semi-gloss in fact. I suspect this is to help the paper
absorb the inks better, which is probably necessary for longevity. The matte papers have the best
longevity, so it's probably something to do with the paper absorbing the ink. Glossy papers don't
absorb the ink so well.

Quoted message said:

13. Leave print to dry for 24 hours.
14. Frame it!
15. Hang it on wall! :o)

16. Stick a price tag on it and flog it. :-)

Quoted message said:

I thought that dark photo was lost, so I have a good feeling that there will be some other photos
from within the archives that I can now rescue, thanks!

Quoted message said:

o)

It's the over-exposed photos that are lost. Not much you can do to retrieve lost details in the
highlights, that's why I hate over-exposure so much. But dark photos can often be quite usable. If
there's no detail at all in the shadows, just leave them black and brighten the rest of the photo.

Quoted message said:

The new Photoshop looks quite good for digital photographers, it's got plenty of other useful new
features too that I read about on dpreview.com.

Yeah, there's one feature that sounds stupendously amazing (can't remember the name of it
offhand). It looks like a much easier and more controllable way of doing a very similar thing to
contrast masking.

Quoted message said:

Yes, when you used to talk about Contrast Masking, I thought it was similar to what you've
descibed above, which can be a bit fiddly and requires a bit more time. But the Contrast Masking
is very easy to do, and I've set up an action like you recommended, and assigned the F12 funtion
key to it, so it's just one click away for all my images now. I think I'll set up a similar action
for the Unsharp Mask contrast boost too...

I forgot about assigning keys to actions. I think I'll save all my most commonly used procedures as
actions with keyboard shortcuts so that I can load a picture, press half a dozen function keys,
then save! :-)

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