Originally Posted by
kbarch
Ah, so you're slipping!
I was wondering how you got pictures like that just riding around. I appreciate the work you do to make them look good.
Funny thing about that test example: looking at the mountain/sky section in isolation, it looks normal, and looking at the lower portion in isolation, that looks normal, too. But when you can see them together, the sharpness of the mountaintops and the clarity of colors in that portion look out of place. A really shallow depth of field might be too artsy sometimes, but there's something un-scenic about
everything being in focus and the lack of atmospheric perspective - it's certainly unlike a natural point of view.
Very interesting, though.
Actually that really how it is there. Super clear all the time...when there isn't a fire. The problem with this scene is that without including the foreground detail you don't get a true sense of the depth. That is actually a really huge area. The lab I used for the test just didn't have the ability I needed to print the scene properly.
That one ride picture is actually the first time I've used photo-merge with any of them. Most are just out of the cellphone with maybe cropping and a levels adjustment. Basic stuff. Yesterday was a weird day for up here with a lot of UV haze/humidity we don't usually get.
Crazy gusting winds today so not safe to go out. Most of my routes had no real shoulder so I don't do the high winds anymore. Too easy to get pushed out into traffic.