Thank you all for your information - I have learnt a lot from this.

Thanks Smeggy for the links - it took me ages to work out where they had put the links on Flickr for the different sizes (under the download icon on the right).

Looking at David Storm's Flickr, it does seem to be better uploading a larger file, although up until now I have seen little point in uploading something that seen at full size will show you a very small detail somewhere in the middle of the picture. But perhaps this is a reason to do exactly that.

Or perhaps it varies depending on the photo and the detail within it.

How/where do I find their editing software Mr. Weather?

Earlier on today I uploaded a vertical version of a picture of Thirlmere taken from Raven Crag.

The picture on Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/andymat/15412582368/


I have processed both this one and a similar landscape one in my profile on here with Lightroom 5. There will have been a certain amount of sharpening applied but I do not like too much and I try not to get distinct light banding around dark edges as I think it looks un-natural and is too much.

I have just looked again at the one on Flickr and notice it shows the over-sharpening banding around the dark edges of the hills against the sky on the left that I was trying to avoid.

Here is my file that I uploaded to Flickr...




Is it just me or does flickr add extra sharpening to photos when you upload them? I didn't notice any controls but then I wasn't expecting to see any.

Yes I like all these Barrie, especially the last one. I love the patterns and colours in the water. It could easily be a Christmas card. (Oops sorry - the C-word just slipped out) .

Well in a world where everything is 'amazing' and 'unbelievable', this truly is amazing. The detail that is picked up by your new system got me staring at this little beast for ages. And this is hand held!

Ugly isn't he!

I'm sure you'll manage to get the most out of this camera if anyone can. Meanwhile, I'll go back to trying to think of more superlatives that haven't been used about photos before. I may be some time.

Vic, I suppose it must have been lucky if you think it has turned out well. I have not done any special processing on the sky area on either picture to bring out particular stars. Perhaps they are a bit brighter anyway and the extra long exposure - over 3 mins - has multiplied the effect?


On a later picture on the second night, the cloud is extending to cover up the lower stars in the plough so I am happy that I got one with the full set!

Many thanks for all your comments.

Yes good suggestion. Perhaps I need to have been more organised and planned the shots in the daylight.

Yes Nigel, it is very easy to get what looks like a day shot simply by raising the exposure in Light Room which is why I can only really present shots with stars in them. It is sort of telling the story.

The picture - minimal processing - with the camper(s). Looking at it now I'm wondering if it was 2 although I didn't hear any talking. He/she/they must have seen me. It was the 13% larger full moon with a clear sky!

Well as it seems like there are quite a few Lake District photos at the moment and since we were there (near Keswick) the week before last, I thought I'd ask for comments and suggestions on my attempts at night photography.

On the 7th of September we had been on a long walk across the Northern fells north of Skiddaw and Blencathra and I was pretty tired but in the evening the moon came out - pretty nearly a full moon - and I couldn't bear to miss the opportunity to play with my camera. So I thought I'd walk the 1.5 miles to the stone circle at Castlerigg.

So after a lot of messing around...
K-5II, DA 12-24 @18mm, f/8, 52 sec, 800 ISO




I struggled with the long exposure as it took as long again to process/save the image as it did to take it. And with long exposure it meant that the stars made lines which is not what I ideally wanted. Which is why I used 800 ISO. I didn't want to go any higher than that because of the noise produced.

Two days later was the 9th and the full moon proper and we again got a beautifully clear night. So off I trudged again on my sore legs to have another go. This time I tried to stick to ISO 200 to reduce the noise but the times were longer - over 3 mins. But here is the result that night...
K-5II, DA 12-24 @12mm, f/8, 136 sec, 200 ISO




I was a little taken aback when I realised that there was someone in a bivy bag 'camping' next to the stone circle. I only realised when I herd the rustling of the bag and checked my picture to see a black blob in the foreground in one of the pictures. I kept away from him after that.

So any suggestions on improvements would be welcome.

Yes I was going to say 4 too because it puts the whole picture in a much larger context and gives extra interest. Except for the first one where you can also see the hills, the others kinda box you in in comparison.

I do like them all though - the polariser is very strong in the sky isn't it? But it also adds (again) some interest by allowing you to see into the water.

Very nice.

They are taking advantage of all the people that are happy to allow their pictures to be used for no charge in exchange for the honour of having their picture used as a background for the Yahoo worldwide weather app. Hence them wanting an official licence.

I think until we, the general (Flickr, Instagram, etc) picture taking public, get over the idea that it is an honour to have their/our pictures used (for free), companies like Yahoo and many others are going to want to exploit an available and willing resource.

So I agree with Aliengrove. The reality of the situation has to be spelled out it seems. If people didn't allow their pictures to be used for this app for nothing, there would be more money for (good) photographers as Yahoo would have to spend money to get their images.

Sean,

A very good question. I usually have the autofocus setting at 11 selectable points so I can set the position in the view finder. The aim for this picture was to use the bridge to frame the view through the arch, so I suspect it was set to focus in the middle although I am not definitely sure.

Looking at your pictures, particularly the first one, you have some foreground interest very close to the camera which I am wondering if it's where the focus point has been set?