# Mullion Cove - handheld landscapes



## George Farmer (3 Aug 2009)

I took all of these with no tripod or filters.   All shot in jpeg with minimal post-processing.  

Holiday snaps, in other words!


----------



## Dave Spencer (3 Aug 2009)

George Farmer said:
			
		

>



This is a prime candidate for a nice moody B+W George. Convert to grayscale, lassoo the sky and adjust the levels to darken it down. I would even consider sticking it on my wall.  Haunted hotel on a cliff....good stuff.

Dave.


----------



## George Farmer (3 Aug 2009)

Do you want the original, Dave?  PM me.


----------



## TDI-line (4 Aug 2009)

Lovely George.


----------



## Dan Crawford (4 Aug 2009)

They're awesome pal


----------



## Stu Worrall (4 Aug 2009)

very nioce georeg, plenty of pre built iwagumis there!  Daves right about the BW for that hotel pic, bit like that film with the haunted house on the sea cliff


----------



## Themuleous (4 Aug 2009)

Love the contrasting textures in this one.





Sam


----------



## Tony Swinney (4 Aug 2009)

Great stuff George - you cant beat walking at the seaside with a camera      

Got to agree with Dave on the clifftop hotel image - it rocks    I'd keep the colour in it myself, and do some work on the sky   

Tony


----------



## George Farmer (4 Aug 2009)

Thanks, guys!

Tony - How would you go about adjusting the sky, bearing in mind I shot in jpeg?


----------



## Tony Swinney (4 Aug 2009)

What, no RAW     Oh well   

I'd put a curve layer on, and increase the contrast in the sky, lifting the highlights very slighty, and bringing the mids down - just to get some definition in the clouds.  Then mask off that layer, and gently brush it back through in the sky areas, trying not to make it look obvious !

Or just drop the sky in from one of the other images - pm'd you   

Tony


----------



## Dave Spencer (4 Aug 2009)

Ten minutes with the lasso tool and using levels on CS3. There sure weren`t many pixels to work with, so some of the tone separation is very blocky, especially in the sky....and you have dirt on your sensor  . Still, it is not as dirty as mine.  





Dave.


----------



## aaronnorth (4 Aug 2009)

If RAW is better then why do photographers still shoot in JPEG occasionally?

Nice shots anyway


----------



## taylsimon (4 Aug 2009)

Great photo's George, have to agree with Sam that picture 4 has wonderful texture and would make a lovely scape with the right rocks.   

Simon.


----------



## a1Matt (4 Aug 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> If RAW is better then why do photographers still shoot in JPEG occasionally?
> 
> Nice shots anyway



file size?


----------



## Dave Spencer (4 Aug 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> If RAW is better then why do photographers still shoot in JPEG occasionally?
> 
> Nice shots anyway



JPEGs are used sometimes for ease of use, file size, most programs can handle them and so on. I don`t do a great deal of PS work, partly because I don`t know a great deal about it, but mostly because I don`t enjoy processing pics a great deal. What I have found out is that you can push RAW files a lot further than JPEGs. In the pic above, I have pushed the mid range tones way beyond the capability of the resolution of the pic. This is particularly noticeable in the sky.

Admittedly, it is a JPEG saved for the net, I rushed what I did, and the original file of George`s will be able to handle a lot more pushing, but it still won`t be able to cope with the levels being adjusted to the extent a RAW file would.

For a lot of people JPEGs are fine, and I still have a lot of JPEG images from D40 that print out great, but for that little extra to produce ultra fine printing, a RAW wins for me. They are bloody big files, though and very hard drive hungry.

Dave.


----------



## George Farmer (4 Aug 2009)

JPEG vs. RAW is a well-documented debate.  Dave summarises it nicely.  

My camera takes great JPEGs with little need for post-processing - much less than RAW, so I shoot mostly JPEG these days to save on time and space.  

More important stuff will be shot RAW, but at around 90Mb per file once it's processed to a 16-bit TIFF...

In tricky lighting conditions then RAW gives you more power to rescue over or underexposures.  There's simply more data to play with.  For everyday shooting though, JPEG is fine for my requirements.

Thanks, all!


----------



## Garuf (4 Aug 2009)

Where in cornwall is this, george? It looks a lot like polzeath to me but at the same time it's obviously not?


----------



## George Farmer (4 Aug 2009)

The clue is in the title mate...  Mullion Cove.    

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... =&aq=f&oq=


----------



## taylsimon (4 Aug 2009)

Most professional photographers shoot in RAW then bring the images into a Raw processing programme. CS3 (photoshop) is an OK processing prgramme but it is meant for graphic designers rather than photographers.  The most user friendly Raw processor for ametuer photographers is Bibble Lite which is very attainable cost wise for amatuers, whereby pro's use Bibble Pro.

The main advantage of Raw is that its a Lossless format, whereas Jpeg isnt, essentially a lossless format means you can edit and play around with the image and it will loose none of the pixels and image information until you save the image into an application friendly file such as jpeg, whereas if you start with a jpeg image you will loose pixels and image information stored by the camera and the more you edit the worse it gets.

(sorry for the techie talk as i was a graphic designer in my previous role before takinga new job in another industry).

A good explanation of lossless an lossy files can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_file_formats 

Simon.


----------



## aaronnorth (5 Aug 2009)

thanks for all the replies, all make great sense


----------



## Lisa_Perry75 (14 Jan 2010)

The first holiday the fiance and I went on together was to Mullion. Some very nice pics George


----------

