5D3 for landscapes

[Tcapp]

Lot of good points in here about the use/abuse of HDR in not only landscape but all forms of photography.  Here are a couple examples I've snapped from the last few weeks with my shiny new mk3 of how I use it augment my images, some of these are pretty traditional and some are a bit on the surreal side (click images for more detail on how/where they were shot)....


Big Sur by @!ex, on Flickr


Japanese Bokeh Garden by @!ex, on Flickr


Redwindow by @!ex, on Flickr


Power Sources by @!ex, on Flickr


My Hood by @!ex, on Flickr


No Lines by @!ex, on Flickr


Drought by @!ex, on Flickr


Spring in Boulder by @!ex, on Flickr


From Nowhere by @!ex, on Flickr


Perspective by @!ex, on Flickr


Cloud Bunker by @!ex, on Flickr

Awesome! Great job on those!

[revup67]

Photo enhanced as a RAW in DPP then saved to JPG..that is all.  No HDR.

Shot with 16-35mm L USM MK II and a B&W 10 stop ND filter.  Settings in bright sun light were:  F22, 15 seconds, ISO 50, at 25mm, AWB, 2 second timer as camera was on backpack on large rock (tripod had the day off)

[revup67]

This one shot in the same location Salt Creek Beach.  16-35 L USM MK II
Settings were:  16mm, F11, ISO 50, 1/100s, Marumi Super DHG Polarizer Cr.
Single Image (not bracketed) HDR process reduced saturation amongst other features in default template.

[revup67]

Back of the Ritz Carlton overlooking Salt Creek Beach, Dana Point.


Ritz Carlton, Dana Point, CA by Revup67, on Flickr

[revup67]

"On The Rocks" specs within photo caption


Salt Creek Beach, CA by Revup67, on Flickr

[Tammy]

"On The Rocks" specs within photo caption


Salt Creek Beach, CA by Revup67, on Flickr

nice shots.. maybe bring up the levels a bit and do an S curve adjustment and they'd really shine?

[revup67]

Thanks Tammy may try that though things look different here on the web via Flickr than they do locally..try clicking the image which brings you to Flickr then press L on your keyboard to view on black..see if you think the same

Here's another..see caption on Flickr for photo details (not HDR).  Encoded with GPS data via the Canon GP-E2..love that device and the software it is accompanied with.


Dove Canyon, CA. by Revup67, on Flickr

[@!ex]

Thanks Tammy may try that though things look different here on the web via Flickr than they do locally..try clicking the image which brings you to Flickr then press L on your keyboard to view on black..see if you think the same

Here's another..see caption on Flickr for photo details (not HDR).  Encoded with GPS data via the Canon GP-E2..love that device and the software it is accompanied with.


Dove Canyon, CA. by Revup67, on Flickr

Not sure what kind of calibration you have on your monitor, but uploading to flickr and then cross posting here should change nothing.

[Kernuak]

Not sure what kind of calibration you have on your monitor, but uploading to flickr and then cross posting here should change nothing.

It is possible if the image is uploaded as Adobe sRGB, depending on the browser or if there are any algorithms used by the website (although I doubt there would either here or on Flickr). Safari should show the full colour space, without any changes to apparent exposure, but other browsers may vary. If uploaded as sRGB though, it shouldn't make any difference as you say.

[@!ex]

Not sure what kind of calibration you have on your monitor, but uploading to flickr and then cross posting here should change nothing.

It is possible if the image is uploaded as Adobe sRGB, depending on the browser or if there are any algorithms used by the website (although I doubt there would either here or on Flickr). Safari should show the full colour space, without any changes to apparent exposure, but other browsers may vary. If uploaded as sRGB though, it shouldn't make any difference as you say.

Good point, although as a rule of thumb I use sRGB from shot all the way through post.  Uploading sRGB is almost always better then ADOBE RGB, as it is only really useful to have that extra gamut in very rare cases...

[Kernuak]

Not sure what kind of calibration you have on your monitor, but uploading to flickr and then cross posting here should change nothing.

It is possible if the image is uploaded as Adobe sRGB, depending on the browser or if there are any algorithms used by the website (although I doubt there would either here or on Flickr). Safari should show the full colour space, without any changes to apparent exposure, but other browsers may vary. If uploaded as sRGB though, it shouldn't make any difference as you say.

Good point, although as a rule of thumb I use sRGB from shot all the way through post.  Uploading sRGB is almost always better then ADOBE RGB, as it is only really useful to have that extra gamut in very rare cases...

I upload as Adobe RGB on my website, because I offer as stock, the compression algorithm for the display JPEG can occasionally cause odd results, but rarely. The stock market requires Adobe not sRGB. To save on workflow, I then transfer direct to Flickr and then here.

[revup67]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

[Kernuak]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

[wickidwombat]

Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.

I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.

you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file

[@!ex]

Like many of you on this forum I was petrified the results would suck, because let's face it, the 5D3 is just designed to be a landscape camera. The DR is too low to get any meaningful details from the shadows, and the resolution just doesn't give you the critical sharpness you need for large-format prints.
Landscape Designer VA

I think I'm sensing some sarcasm...