A ten shot stitch infrared image
EOS 20D (IR converted), 17-40 @ 32mm, 1/60th @ f 8, ISO 100
EOS 20D (IR converted), 17-40 @ 32mm, 1/60th @ f 8, ISO 100
-
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
Nicely stitched together
Tom -
Re: Ythan Estuary
Nice composition. Had to look up where the estuary was.Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/Comment
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
Nice pano but not keen on the infra red treatment - just looks un natural
stanComment
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
tend to agree Stan - it makes you wonder when a photo is a photo or artistic viewpoint ?Originally posted by Stan View Post:- Ian
5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)
:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/Comment
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
Thanks for the feedback guys. By definition, infrared cannot look natural as our eyes cannot see infrared. It can be a bit 'Marmite', and can look a bit surreal, but it gives another option if I've shot something in visible light before, or if the light isn't very good for visible light photos. It looks better as a big image, which is difficult to do with a low res forum post. Here's how it looks in visible light. (Excuse the squint horizon)
Comment
-
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
I liked it in infrared...Comment
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
I love the ir sky and water but the land is too moonscape for me. I'd be tempted to drop the sky and the river into the visible spectrum shot.TS-E17 F4L, 70-300L, 100 F2.8L Macro. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynelsworth/Comment
-
Re: Ythan Estuary
I have to say that the IR has a certain "quality" to it......there is symmetry in chaos....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mosscroft-images/
http://500px.com/DouglasMcMann/Comment
Comment