PDA

View Full Version : North East Coast - Runswick Bay



Sand Dancin Donkey Walker
27-07-2009, 23:02
Hi Guys
Been out for a late evening trek.

Tried to get the sun down evening shots, but the clouds obscured the sun before it reached the horizon, though the setting sun on the cliffs look good.

A village called Runswick Bay. Great place, though only about 10 miles from home and 8 miles from Whitby, I sadly do not visit as often as I should.

The road down to the village is a bit hairy, the road is steep in the extreme. As you approach the drop you can’t see the road, it appears you are about to drop off the cliff edge. Climbing back out of the village is fun too, a lot of cars over the years have not made it out, well not without the help of a tractor.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll246/HyCoignitor/Audio%20Art%20of%20Sound/RunswickBay02V1.jpg

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll246/HyCoignitor/Audio%20Art%20of%20Sound/RunswickBay09V1.jpg

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll246/HyCoignitor/Audio%20Art%20of%20Sound/RunswickBay08V1.jpg

Andy - SDDW

Mike
27-07-2009, 23:04
Nice! :)

Marco
28-07-2009, 07:03
Me likes, Andy! :)

Do you see how much more atmospheric landscapes are at sunset (or at dawn, for that matter)? The colours are just much more interesting, and accordingly so is the mood portrayed.

Marco.

Spectral Morn
28-07-2009, 10:36
Hi Andy


Very nice pictures. My wife and I like walking when its dusk, less people around for a start and the mood is enhanced some what.


Regards D S D L

Sand Dancin Donkey Walker
28-07-2009, 11:17
Hi Guys

Was one on those, spur of the moment things. A bit bored so had a drive out with the dog and ended up at Runswick Bay.

Will have to visit there more often. You are right Neil, places have far fewer people about in the early to late evenings. Much nicer to have a walk.

Andy - SDDW

DaveK
28-07-2009, 11:51
Hi Andy,
Nice pics. I know Runswick Bay a little - used to do a bit of diving off there - beautiful place and I remember exactly what you mean about the road. Does it get snowed in often (I know only during the winter!:lolsign:).
I envy you your local scenery - I'm a coast person myself but lived all my life inland - and I know what you mean about not going there often enough - I live about 5 miles from the edge of the Peak District (nice enough scenery in places but no sea ;) ) and I very rarely venture in there.
My son is about to get a Springer Spaniel puppy and, as his job takes him around the country, sometimes for 2 or 3 days at a time (and he is single, lives alone), I anticipate him leaving the dog with us quite often, so I might have more reason to get out in the sticks a bit more often. I'm looking forward to it actually as we had dogs when I was a kid, but when I got married, moved home, both of us working, and then the kids came along, we went for cats instead (more independant). Now got 3 Persian/Exotic house cats so it's going to be interesting trying to introduce a new puppy into that environment.
Hope the new job goes well.
Cheers,
PS
Can I ask you to do me a favour? When posting pics make them only as wide as the forum page width. Your pics are beautiful but it detracts from them a little when you have to scroll them from side to side and back again to see the full picture (and "No", getting a widescreen PC is not the answer - got one !!)

Spectral Morn
28-07-2009, 12:02
Hi Andy,
Nice pics. I know Runswick Bay a little - used to do a bit of diving off there - beautiful place and I remember exactly what you mean about the road. Does it get snowed in often (I know only during the winter!:lolsign:).
I envy you your local scenery - I'm a coast person myself but lived all my life inland - and I know what you mean about not going there often enough - I live about 5 miles from the edge of the Peak District (nice enough scenery in places but no sea ;) ) and I very rarely venture in there.
My son is about to get a Springer Spaniel puppy and, as his job takes him around the country, sometimes for 2 or 3 days at a time (and he is single, lives alone), I anticipate him leaving the dog with us quite often, so I might have more reason to get out in the sticks a bit more often. I'm looking forward to it actually as we had dogs when I was a kid, but when I got married, moved home, both of us working, and then the kids came along, we went for cats instead (more independant). Now got 3 Persian/Exotic house cats so it's going to be interesting trying to introduce a new puppy into that environment.
Hope the new job goes well.
Cheers,
PS
Can I ask you to do me a favour? When posting pics make them only as wide as the forum page width. Your pics are beautiful but it detracts from them a little when you have to scroll them from side to side and back again to see the full picture (and "No", getting a widescreen PC is not the answer - got one !!)


Hi DaveC

The size of Andy's pictures is the max and what photo bucket allows i.e 1024 x 768. To alter to say 1000 requires a fair bit of messing around either with photobucket software or say GIMP. Bigger photos no, but I think 1024 is okay.

I saw your comment about this elsewhere.


Regards D S D L

Mike
28-07-2009, 12:03
Can I ask you to do me a favour? When posting pics make them only as wide as the forum page width. Your pics are beautiful but it detracts from them a little when you have to scroll them from side to side and back again to see the full picture (and "No", getting a widescreen PC is not the answer - got one !!)

Erm...

The pics are actually narrower than the forum page. :confused:

Spectral Morn
28-07-2009, 12:05
Erm...

The pics are actually narrower than the forum page. :confused:


Indeed, I didn't want to be quite so blunt about it.


Regards D S D L

DaveK
28-07-2009, 12:06
Erm...

The pics are actually narrower than the forum page. :confused:

Not on my widescreen netbook they're not so :ner::ner::ner:.
Seriously, how can this be? :scratch:
Cheers,
PS and Edit.
Just had another look at the pics on my 40" TV and, surprise surprise, the pics are indeed narrower than the text, so ......
Question) why do they show on my netbook to be much wider - is it something to do with the no. of pixels in the picture being 'x' wide and my netbook only being 'x-' pixels wide?

Alex_UK
12-08-2009, 06:41
Not on my widescreen netbook they're not so :ner::ner::ner:.
Seriously, how can this be? :scratch:
Cheers,
PS and Edit.
Just had another look at the pics on my 40" TV and, surprise surprise, the pics are indeed narrower than the text, so ......
Question) why do they show on my netbook to be much wider - is it something to do with the no. of pixels in the picture being 'x' wide and my netbook only being 'x-' pixels wide?

You've got it Dave - the resolution on your PC will probably be set to something like 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 - although in the latter case, the photos would be the same width as the screen, you would still need to allow a bit for the window frame so would have to scroll a little. Depending on your eyesight, and the graphics card, you could try bumping this up a bit - I run 1600 x 900 - it can be changed under the "Personalization" options (Control Panel) - let me know if you need better instructions.

DaveK
12-08-2009, 10:36
You've got it Dave - the resolution on your PC will probably be set to something like 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 - 1024 x 600 actually, whereas the main TV is HD, 1080i, so that would appear to be why.) although in the latter case, the photos would be the same width as the screen, you would still need to allow a bit for the window frame so would have to scroll a little. Depending on your eyesight, and the graphics card, you could try bumping this up a bit - I run 1600 x 900 - it can be changed under the "Personalization" options (Control Panel) - let me know if you need better instructions.

Thanks Alex,
PS looking forward to your thoughts (thread ?) on the mains conditioner effects - I gather that, from the fact that it is still listed in your kit and you have said that you were surprised by it's effect, the effects were beneficial.
Cheers,

Alex_UK
12-08-2009, 14:28
Duly posted Dave!

Haselsh1
13-08-2009, 13:06
Hey very nice photo's but you need to do a bit of colour correction in Photoshop. Your white balance is off. The buildings should be white not blue. I know it's bloody picky but it'll keep you busy for hours.

DaveK
13-08-2009, 13:40
Hey very nice photo's but you need to do a bit of colour correction in Photoshop. Your white balance is off. The buildings should be white not blue. I know it's bloody picky but it'll keep you busy for hours.

Hi Shaun,
Before I start let me say up front that I acknowlewdge your superior knowledge, skill and expertise in this area so I am not arguing with you but .....
don't you think that the blue tinge to the white houses adds an element of evening light to the shots. I suppose an artist (painter) might add it deliberately to his painting for effect.
I must admit my comments are somewhat motivated by a wish to avoid adjusting the white balance in Photoshop, something I've often tried and never really succeeded. Keeping Andy busy for hours may prove to be an understatement :lol: .
Cheers,

Sand Dancin Donkey Walker
13-08-2009, 14:58
Hi Sean

This one looks a better white balance, can't seem to find my original of the one you commented on. Can only find a Blue house version.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll246/HyCoignitor/Audio%20Art%20of%20Sound/RunswickBay10V1-1.jpg

Andy - SDDW

Mart
17-08-2009, 16:19
Hey very nice photo's but you need to do a bit of colour correction in Photoshop. Your white balance is off. The buildings should be white not blue. I know it's bloody picky but it'll keep you busy for hours.


I think at times people can get a bit carried away with being able to correct this and adjust that with digital photo's and without realising it, actually move the balance of the picture away from what the eye actually saw.

Yep, I know it’s handy to be able clear up pics etc but consider this:

I was there that evening with Andy, Runswick bay is a little fishing hamlet tucked into the cliffs facing the sea, the sky was clear and very blue, the sea reflects the blue of the sky, the white houses have the sun setting more or less behind them and are facing the evening blue of the sky and the blue of the sea.

I'd say it would look unnatural and to be honest, rather odd if they didn't have a bluey tint them, Andy's photo looks exactly as I remember it looking to my eyes, and it looks exactly like the pictures I took too.

Though this little fellow didn't seem bothered about any of it.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/M4rt/Odds/Seal.jpg

aquapiranha
17-08-2009, 17:02
Very nice pictures, a lovely looking place there. I must sort out some pics from my recent trip to Dunfanaghy, especially those of Horn Head - a lovely place.

Haselsh1
19-08-2009, 07:44
Back in the days of colour film and slide film we used colour correction filters to get the balance just right. In this case it would have been an 81 series filter to warm up the image. Nowadays though everyone assumes that because it's digital it's going to be correct. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Photoshop includes photographic filters under the Image/Adjustments heading. One of those filters is an 81 series filter which can be used for warming up a view or correcting to much blue. The problem here is that your eye/brain combination can do a helluva lot more than a camera/computer and we tend to take that for granted.

I still shoot film and use correction filters. It's the only way to learn. Once again, digital teaches you very little. It is only convenient but it's convenience stops when things get out of the ordinary like the specialised images you are shooting here.

Haselsh1
19-08-2009, 07:46
Another example of far to much blue is photographing in snow. How often have you seen blue snow other than in a photograph...? Snow is white, it is not blue. Again, one has to use a colour correction filter.

Mike
19-08-2009, 10:35
How often have you seen blue snow other than in a photograph...?

I've seen blue snow... well, a glacier actually, which is largely compressed snow. Does that count? :)

Alex_UK
19-08-2009, 11:13
I've made snow yellow, without a filter, does that count too? (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Ali Tait
19-08-2009, 17:41
It was with a filter-your kidneys! :lolsign:

Mart
19-08-2009, 18:36
Back in the days of colour film and slide film we used colour correction filters to get the balance just right. In this case it would have been an 81 series filter to warm up the image. Nowadays though everyone assumes that because it's digital it's going to be correct. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Photoshop includes photographic filters under the Image/Adjustments heading. One of those filters is an 81 series filter which can be used for warming up a view or correcting to much blue. The problem here is that your eye/brain combination can do a helluva lot more than a camera/computer and we tend to take that for granted.

I still shoot film and use correction filters. It's the only way to learn. Once again, digital teaches you very little. It is only convenient but it's convenience stops when things get out of the ordinary like the specialised images you are shooting here.



All very well and good and your obviously a very experienced photographer, well done you.

However:

You seemed to have missed the bit where I said that due to the sky and the sea and the time of day, the houses had a blue ish tint when you looked at them. Actually looked at them with your eyes.

By taking a photo and subsequently altering the colour balance, you can be taking away what the eye saw and wanted to photograph in the first place.

As somebody else remarked:

"don't you think that the blue tinge to the white houses adds an element of evening light to the shots".

Absolutely correct and well said.

In brilliant sunlight the houses would look brilliant white, but in the dark of the evening and surrounded by sky and sea they had a blue ish tinge, I could drive down there tonight and see exactly the same thing.

So why take that away and not show in the photo what the eye saw in the first place?


And btw,

Who said these were specialised images?

They're just snaps taken whilst walking the dog on a beach.

Haselsh1
19-08-2009, 20:06
Any photographer knows that taking images under such extreme conditions makes them specialised or even highly specialised. It's pretty much like taking photographs at night and having to use an 80B filter. Very specialised.

Mart
20-08-2009, 18:35
Any photographer knows that taking images under such extreme conditions makes them specialised or even highly specialised. It's pretty much like taking photographs at night and having to use an 80B filter. Very specialised.


Sean, just a couple of points.

They aren't specialised pictures, they really are just snaps taken whilst walking the dog.

We, Andy or I and quite possibly most others, are not photographers, profesional or otherwise, we're just blokes taking a few snaps at things we like the look of.

I know you are good at what you do, and that you have so very high standards for your own photos, top marks to you, but theres no need to be so critical of others.

I get the feeling that when you look at a photo, you don't see the photo, you see white balance and colour saturation and over/under exposure etc, its like you're reading the Matrix instead of looking at the Woman in the Red Dress:eyebrows:

I look at the picture rather than the quality of the photo, if the subject doesn't interest me then the quality means jack.

The houses in Andy's picture really show the time of day, you can tell what time of day it is just by looking at those houses, edit that out and that picture has lost the ambience of evening.

Take, for example, the old brownish coloured black and whites that our parents have of their parents or themselves as kids, and the quality of which we speak just isn't there, but those pictures draw you in and you find yourself staring at them for ages.

Every photo doesn't have to be the perfect photo.

DSJR
20-08-2009, 18:53
You've got it Dave - the resolution on your PC will probably be set to something like 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 - although in the latter case, the photos would be the same width as the screen, you would still need to allow a bit for the window frame so would have to scroll a little. Depending on your eyesight, and the graphics card, you could try bumping this up a bit - I run 1600 x 900 - it can be changed under the "Personalization" options (Control Panel) - let me know if you need better instructions.

Now listen 'ere Alex, I've only just changed the lounge laptop from 800 x 600 to 1024 x 768. We can't all afford the latest in everything you know.......:steam:

Alex_UK
20-08-2009, 19:44
Sorry Dave (DSJR) - I was being fairly specific knowing that DaveC has a quite modern Sony Vaio Desktop, which would have a higher resolution than most laptops, but take your point, and in any case, some people don't like the tiny fonts etc.

Haselsh1
20-08-2009, 21:34
Sean, just a couple of points.

They aren't specialised pictures, they really are just snaps taken whilst walking the dog.

We, Andy or I and quite possibly most others, are not photographers, profesional or otherwise, we're just blokes taking a few snaps at things we like the look of.

I know you are good at what you do, and that you have so very high standards for your own photos, top marks to you, but theres no need to be so critical of others.

I get the feeling that when you look at a photo, you don't see the photo, you see white balance and colour saturation and over/under exposure etc, its like you're reading the Matrix instead of looking at the Woman in the Red Dress:eyebrows:

I look at the picture rather than the quality of the photo, if the subject doesn't interest me then the quality means jack.

The houses in Andy's picture really show the time of day, you can tell what time of day it is just by looking at those houses, edit that out and that picture has lost the ambience of evening.

Take, for example, the old brownish coloured black and whites that our parents have of their parents or themselves as kids, and the quality of which we speak just isn't there, but those pictures draw you in and you find yourself staring at them for ages.

Every photo doesn't have to be the perfect photo.


You have to be aware that you really are not being very fair on yourself to say that these are just snapshots. Snapshots are taken on warm sunny days with the sun well behind you. To take photographs in such extreme conditions is to be very specific and specialised. Any silly sod can take a snapshot; taking photographs under such difficult conditions is not easy and you are not making things easy for yourself by doing this. I praise what you are trying to achieve but you are being slightly naive.

Marco
21-08-2009, 08:53
Let's not get too heavy, guys... Everyone has a different level of photographic ability, but all 'snaps' or otherwise are interesting to look at. I don't want people's so-called lack of skill stifling their desire to post their images :)

All are welcome!

Marco.

Mart
21-08-2009, 14:37
Let's not get too heavy, guys... Everyone has a different level of photographic ability, but all 'snaps' or otherwise are interesting to look at. I don't want people's so-called lack of skill stifling their desire to post their images :)

All are welcome!

Marco.


Point taken Marco

What I'm trying to say is that every picture does not need to be absolutley perfect to be interesting, and I don't think that makes me naive.

Looks like Sean and I will have to agree to differ, so I'm gonna make a new thread and whack some "snap shots" up.