Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Justan on August 02, 2011, 01:26:11 pm
-
...
-
the cloud and its color is great!
-
At first glance a very nice image but the more you look at it then the question that pops into your mind is why is the front of the building so light considering that it is backlit by the sunset? Is it two images combined or is the foreground over processed? I am afraid it is too "realistic". :-\
-
Interesting comments, Stamper. Thanks for taking the time to study it.
The image is a composite of 10 frames, taken about 30 minutes before sunset.
You are saying that the buildings should be a little darker? On the print the buildings are a tad too dark.
-
Yes, the image looks like HDR. And despite the great sunset, the image looks somewhat flat and static, lacking even in soft shadows. Surely there must have been some soft shadows. I just tried duplicating and overlapping your image and then reducing the opacity and it makes the colours and densities in the image look more realistic. I also think the leading lines, the fence and road, leads the eye to the centre and where it is trapped and has no natural of way travelling throughout the image. Placing the buildings slightly more to the right, IMO, would help remedy this. Just some thoughts.
-
Very nicely balanced composition. The slightly HDR-ish look doesn't bother me a bit. It still gives that feeling of muted colors that time of day in the shade.
-
...
-
Very nicely balanced composition. The slightly HDR-ish look doesn't bother me a bit. It still gives that feeling of muted colors that time of day in the shade.
Thanks!
-
I like the clouds and the farm, but personally I would have set the composition to exclude the road on the right. On one hand it does balance with the fence on the left side to create an envelope, but I think it's too strong an element on its own and distracts from the rest of the image. My eye wanders up and down the road, wondering where it's going at either end and takes my focus away from being 'here' 'now' at the farm.
Mike.
-
Thanks!
Justan imo Louoates gave you the least informative reply of all, yet you thanked him. I hope you benefited from all of the others? :)
-
I like the clouds and the farm, but personally I would have set the composition to exclude the road on the right. On one hand it does balance with the fence on the left side to create an envelope, but I think it's too strong an element on its own and distracts from the rest of the image. My eye wanders up and down the road, wondering where it's going at either end and takes my focus away from being 'here' 'now' at the farm.
Mike.
Thank you, Mike.
Interesting you should mention the visual strength of the roadway. I typically do everything I can to avoid showing roadways in much of my work, but this time it was integral to the composition, if I wanted to capture the symmetry of the sky. Do you think making it old road-grey would reduce the impact or does just having an asphalt road distract from the pastoral nature of the scene for you?
-
...I hope you benefited from all of the others? :)
Absolutely. A goal of this kind of interaction is the opportunity to learn. The sensibilities others contribute can help to polish the end result. On another level, a thoughtful comment can become part of the tools used in the development process.
Typically all gain something from this kind of exchange.
-
John, I always appreciate your critiques.
>And despite the great sunset, the image looks somewhat flat and static, lacking even in soft shadows. ...
Hmmm. The buildings are totally in shadow. The only notable shadow detail remaining is the dark to blacks in the stable area left of the barn.
What I've done is to add some color to the barn (below).
> I also think the leading lines, the fence and road, leads the eye to the centre and where it is trapped and has no natural of way travelling throughout the image. Placing the buildings slightly more to the right, IMO, would help remedy this. Just some thoughts.
I appreciate the observation but don't agree on how the eye moves around the scene. However you appear to be implying that the low color saturation of the barn (compared to the sky) causes the eye to lose interest once it gets there. On the print the endless details of the barn holds the interest. Perhaps that's the difference between the print vs screen resolution?
It is a very good image notwithstanding my initial comments. I really should take my own advice, which I just posted about another image. I often subjectively impose (I think most of us do this) what I think an image should look like in terms of format, which is probably a habit from shooting slides in 2x3 format for years. For me Panos take a while getting used to and I should probably look at them in the cold and fresh light of morning. I pretty much made the same observation as Mike. I guess a cultural or visual bias. Your darkened or saturated version has the quality of a subject in shadow, as you have mentioned and looks more realistic to me. I do like it better than the lighter version which looks somewhat desatured on my screen. So, having little or no experience with printing, I assume you are right about preparing for the net vs printing.
-
...
-
In the last example I wouldn't have lightened the sky. The sky looks too light and washed out on my monitor. I like how you lightened the rest.
I would vote to keep the road. I love the way it funnels the eye toward the barn, as does the fence. Without the road my first thought would be to crop off part of the right side.
-
It's subjects like this that have made me shoot some film again. I like the image.
Despite you stacking various images to control the DR of the scene we still have a harsh blown out highlight in the sky at the left and it looks like you have tried to control that, the picture has ended up with a strange balance between light and shade. If that is the effect you are trying to produce then ok, but I suspect you were trying to control the scene and get it to look natural. Seriously a roll of 120 Portra would of got it in one shot and kept the tones in their natural order.
Kevin.
-
Blaming digital and suggesting film as an alternative isn't technically sound. There is less dynamic range in film, unless of course you were planning to scan the film and digitalize it? ;) I suspect the original could have been better processed with what he had. I even suggest a skilled user of Photoshop could have done it better with one raw image. What happened was one person's idea of a good image that others disagreed with and thought that it could have been improved. This isn't a reason to start a digital v film debate. 8)
-
Blaming digital and suggesting film as an alternative isn't technically sound. There is less dynamic range in film, unless of course you were planning to scan the film and digitalize it? ;) I suspect the original could have been better processed with what he had. I even suggest a skilled user of Photoshop could have done it better with one raw image. What happened was one person's idea of a good image that others disagreed with and thought that it could have been improved. This isn't a reason to start a digital v film debate. 8)
I'm not interested in a film v digital debate, I've had that with myself. If the shot was on Portra the DR is huge and yes I scan it, to say there is less DR in film is way off the mark. I don't think that blown out highlight could be improved by anyone with Photoshop short of actually painting from imagination into the space. Neither does shooting a multi series of exposures really do it either. I am still waiting to see a HDR shot that improves an image by keeping it look natural and not like a special effect. Shot on film the tones stay in the correct order and if you have something that goes beyond the DR it does not clip as violently as a shot on digital. One of my pet hates is the imagery sold at local craft shops, you can bet there will be a group of Sunsets in them and 9 times out of 10 the area around the Sun is plain ugly.
Here is someone that says it better, most of what he says is not applicable to shooting stills but the bit about someone walking with the Sun behind them and getting detail in the face is http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Wally_Pfister/index.htm
It's not digital v film it's using the right tool for the job, clearly digital is the right tool for the job for some things and film is better for others, high contrast shots into the Sun work better in my opinion on film. Shooting a thousand images at a sports event digital wins, turning around a job quickly digital wins, if you want a file with robust colour and huge DR a roll of Portra wins. 100% of what I shoot is digital for clients, they want it fast and on a budget. I have reasons other than quality for shooting film from a personal point of view, I like the simplicity of using it, most of all though I like what it does.
Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
-
Does Portra exceed 12 stops? Most quality DSLR'S can produce 12 stops. If it is that good then why scan it? The obvious answer is that you are trying to extend the DR? As to toning down the light area then that would be easy in Photoshop assuming a little skill and no imagination required. A layer set to multiply and the layer inverted would do it with a little masking. Better still a Viveza plug in. I don't know how Justan exposed the original but a spot meter for the lightest area - exposure lock - and EV + 2 would have exposed that area better and the shadows would have been lightened as well. Most photographers have left film behind because digital can handle the issues with less hassle. The cost of a scanner and extra knowledge is a burden most photographers don't want to use. :) BTW the highlight doesn't look blown to me, just too light? I had a look at the link. It is for movie images and not stills so I don't see the relevance? The guy sounded knowledgeable but opinionated and smug. I would have to see some knowledgeable rebuttal before making up my mind. As to the sun looking ugly that is because the DR has been exceeded. No medium can capture it properly nor can filters tone it down but post Photoshop can tame it nicely, if you know how. :)
-
Does Portra exceed 12 stops? Most quality DSLR'S can produce 12 stops. If it is that good then why scan it? The obvious answer is that you are trying to extend the DR? As to toning down the light area then that would be easy in Photoshop assuming a little skill and no imagination required. A layer set to multiply and the layer inverted would do it with a little masking. Better still a Viveza plug in. I don't know how Justan exposed the original but a spot meter for the lightest area - exposure lock - and EV + 2 would have exposed that area better and the shadows would have been lightened as well. Most photographers have left film behind because digital can handle the issues with less hassle. The cost of a scanner and extra knowledge is a burden most photographers don't want to use. :) BTW the highlight doesn't look blown to me, just too light? I had a look at the link. It is for movie images and not stills so I don't see the relevance? The guy sounded knowledgeable but opinionated and smug. I would have to see some knowledgeable rebuttal before making up my mind. As to the sun looking ugly that is because the DR has been exceeded. No medium can capture it properly nor can filters tone it down but post Photoshop can tame it nicely, if you know how. :)
Oh heavens yes way over 12 stops and your common DSLR is nearer 8-9 stops and what 12 bit?, less when you start upping the iso, even Phaseone only claim about 12.5. You scan because a digital file is more useful these days, the scanner cannot extend the DR it can only try and get the information out of the negative not put it in. Toning down the highlight by making it grey or a colour tint is not really an answer, you need detail in it or at least a smooth progression to no detail, even the surrounding areas of yellow sky are mostly blown out, there is no tone to the yellow, just blocks of yellow. That is not a special criticism of this image which I do like, but an example of what people now except in a picture, no plugin in the World can work with information which is not there. I would hate for anyone to just take my word for it. You can pick up a film camera for pennies, pay to have a roll processed and pay to get a decent scan of say one or two images, at least that way you could judge wether you think it's worth doing or not. If you can stretch to a half decent MF camera you would get a better idea. A MF would be more than pennies, something like a Yashica Mat or Mamiya C33 might be a hundred or two, but you would not lose much reselling after shooting a few rolls. What I would say is if you do try one just take that out with you and a tripod, leave everything else at home and get to grips with the reversed image, slow working pace etc these cameras force you to work at. There is a chance you might find it a more enjoyable way of working, if not sell it again.Nothing lost but an experience gained.
It is relevant what he says about walking in front of the Sun and retaining detail in the shadow side of the face, that applies to still photography as well, as for him being knowledgable well yeah did you read what he does and what his credits are for? Smug? he's given his opinion as to why he works a certain way when he has a budget that would let him work anyway he chooses.
Kevin.
;D
-
Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself. Stating that film was better than digital. He was asked why he didn't shoot film any more. He said it was more convenient to shoot digital. He was asked why he gave up "quality" for convenience. Still waiting for an answer. There isn't an answer to your post. You do what suits you best but stating that film is "best" but shooting digital means you are trying to have both worlds at once. This debate will never be settled. :)
-
Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself. Stating that film was better than digital. He was asked why he didn't shoot film any more. He said it was more convenient to shoot digital. He was asked why he gave up "quality" for convenience. Still waiting for an answer. There isn't an answer to your post. You do what suits you best but stating that film is "best" but shooting digital means you are trying to have both worlds at once. This debate will never be settled. :)
He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.
I have not stated film is best, I have stated film does some things better than digital. The reason I shoot mostly digital is because it earns me more money, for that digital is best, if you want a high DR and all the benefits that brings then a roll of film is best, it will require more effort to get it. If you can't see the clipped highlights and blocky colours despite using HDR techniques fine, stay happy. If you can see them and would like a solution I'm suggesting one. I'm not even saying believe me, I'm saying give it a try, live with it for a bit and see if you think it's worth it and you might even enjoy the journey on the way. If you are not interested or don't think it's worth the effort when there are plugins you think will do the same, I'm not bothered no skin off my nose as they say. I'm not against digital or the stuff that comes with it, it's bought the house I live in the bm in the drive and lots of other stuff, but I am not going to ignore it's darkside just because it makes life easier. It's not often a digital shooter will claim they shoot digital because it looks better, I hear it's cheaper, quicker, more versatile, easier, lighter but never because it's more beautiful. I shoot both and use whichever is best for the job, I would of shot the farm on film and LF if possible if it was for me, if it was for a client that needed it quickly and on a budget then I shoot on digital, no one is going to pay me extra for a sheet of film, processing and scanning.
Kevin.
-
Quote
He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.
Unquote
Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre? I was thinking about buying Michael and Jeff's video but I think I will make my self one tomorrow when I have a spare five minutes. Will it take that long? ;) ;D
-
Gentlemen,
The contempt is not only entirely out of line but not called for. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain an adult conversation and a civil tone, kindly take it elsewhere.
People are entitled to their opinions. Counter points are acceptable. Proof of opinion helps credibility while a lack therein makes one appear less than credible. Personal attacks and derision demonstrate childish behaviors. Unless you wish your posts to be reported to the moderators, kindly remove the slurs.
-
Quote
He shoots digital for the same reason we all shoot digital, it's so easy to do and requires very little effort or knowledge to produce a decent image, that's why everyone in the world thinks they are now a photographer.
Unquote
Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre? I was thinking about buying Michael and Jeff's video but I think I will make my self one tomorrow when I have a spare five minutes. Will it take that long? ;) ;D
No mate, I do what I need to make a living, the right tool for job. No point in me shooting film if it means they don't get the image when they want and at a higher cost to them, I would soon need to get a real job in an office or something.
Here's why I started looking at film again. I think it was about Feb, I had a client wanting a Sunrise shot of their site with Canary Wharf in the background catching the golden sunlight in the glass, It was a morning with a low mist. We took off in the helicopter just before Sunrise to be on site for the Sun's first light, I got the shots, not quite what I imagined because the low mist had dispersed into the air giving a slightly misty atmosphere. Anyway I did all I could with the site. For my own pleasure I asked the Pilot to take me around the other side of the Canary Wharf Towers so I could get the Sun in the background, which he did. The Sun coming through the towers in the mist looked fantastic, like beams of light tumbling through a Church window catching the dust in the atmosphere. I shot lots varying the exposure because the contrast range was huge. I got some nice images but I always felt I had missed it in many ways, one that got away, I could not tame the contrast range in the image. I believe now if I had shot it on film I would of got it. I now always take a camera loaded with film up with me just in case I get another situation that the Canons will not handle.
Not wishing to hijack this thread anymore I will post an example in a new thread.
Kevin.
-
Gentlemen,
The contempt is not only entirely out of line but not called for. If you are unwilling or unable to maintain an adult conversation and a civil tone, kindly take it elsewhere.
People are entitled to their opinions. Counter points are acceptable. Proof of opinion helps credibility while a lack therein makes one appear less than credible. Personal attacks and derision demonstrate childish behaviors. Unless you wish your posts to be reported to the moderators, kindly remove the slurs.
If you look at the end of the post JUSTAN you will see a wink and a smiley. If you aren't sure what they mean then ask someone. To help you out they are meant to be an attempt at humour. The thread has been fine up until your untimely intervention and the other poster didn't complain. ::)
-
If you look at the end of the post JUSTAN you will see a wink and a smiley. If you aren't sure what they mean then ask someone. To help you out they are meant to be an attempt at humour. The thread has been fine up until your untimely intervention and the other poster didn't complain. ::)
Stamper,
Stating something that is bluntly rude and hiding it behind a smiley is being bluntly rude and evasive. I'm not the forum police and don’t pretend otherwise. The level of discourse is inappropriate. It detracts from the topic and is inflammatory.
Here are some key points you brought to the discussion. Lets review:
> Justan imo Louoates gave you the least informative reply of all,…
> Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself….
> Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre?
If you can keep to the topic that would be great.
-
It's subjects like this that have made me shoot some film again. I like the image.
Despite you stacking various images to control the DR of the scene we still have a harsh blown out highlight in the sky at the left and it looks like you have tried to control that, the picture has ended up with a strange balance between light and shade. If that is the effect you are trying to produce then ok, but I suspect you were trying to control the scene and get it to look natural. Seriously a roll of 120 Portra would of got it in one shot and kept the tones in their natural order.
Kevin.
Kevin,
Thanks for your comments.
I never used Porta and had infrequent access to a box that would hold 120 film. Long ago I worked mostly with 35 mm and some studio bound view cameras. Then I found that film has many endearing characteristics. Generally the bigger the physical area of film the better nuances of tones. If only it wasn’t such a chore to get to a workable state! But such trade offs are commonly done in the name of appealing to the consumer.
I've read that the DR for MF cameras (digital) is notably greater than the top DSLRs of today (though the differences there appears to be diminishing). Some who use the newer PhaseOne backs say (and demonstrate) the equipment has phenomenal DR. I’d love to get my hands on some of this hardware. Alas for the time, all I have is my trusty D80 and a little practice with HDR.
Regarding the DR of the image, the cloud exposures were done at 1/15 and the building exposures were done at 1 second (iso 100). The buildings were nearly featureless silhouettes when exposing for the sky. To capture the building colors and details, the sky lost all useful detial. It may be possible to capture the DR of this scene with a MF camera. I dunno. It would certainly make the task a whole lot easier if it could!
This was my first work done in CS5. Regarding the white area of the skies, thanks for pointing that out. In the raw files the cloud detail is all there but it’s reduced in the pano merge and completely gone in the web image. After your note, I looked and found the data loss took place during the hdr merge part of the process.
Also part of the problem appears due to the screen capture program I use to make jpg files. What do others use to make web images from .tif or psd files?
I'm going to be busy for a few days but I’ll definitely re-work the image to restore the cloud detail. Thanks again!
-
Stamper,
Stating something that is bluntly rude and hiding it behind a smiley is being bluntly rude and evasive. I'm not the forum police and don’t pretend otherwise. The level of discourse is inappropriate. It detracts from the topic and is inflammatory.
Here are some key points you brought to the discussion. Lets review:
> Justan imo Louoates gave you the least informative reply of all,…
> Is it difficult riding two horses at once? A photographer I once knew had opinions like yourself….
> Wow. Really interesting. It looks as if you have prostituted yourself for the filthy lucre?
If you can keep to the topic that would be great.
If you consider this inflammatory then you lead a sheltered life. This topic was fine up until the mention of film which wasn't appropriate to the discussion. I countered that point and then Kevin A went on a discourse of it's merits, finally saying that digital was easy and anyone could do it. As stated my post about filthy lucre was an attempt at humour in order to lighten the tone after what was a dismissal of the merits of digital. Your mock horror doesn't wash with me and as you stated you aren't a moderator for the forum. :-X
-
Kevin,
Thanks for your comments.
I never used Porta and had infrequent access to a box that would hold 120 film. Long ago I worked mostly with 35 mm and some studio bound view cameras. Then I found that film has many endearing characteristics. Generally the bigger the physical area of film the better nuances of tones. If only it wasn’t such a chore to get to a workable state! But such trade offs are commonly done in the name of appealing to the consumer.
I've read that the DR for MF cameras (digital) is notably greater than the top DSLRs of today (though the differences there appears to be diminishing). Some who use the newer PhaseOne backs say (and demonstrate) the equipment has phenomenal DR. I’d love to get my hands on some of this hardware. Alas for the time, all I have is my trusty D80 and a little practice with HDR.
Regarding the DR of the image, the cloud exposures were done at 1/15 and the building exposures were done at 1 second (iso 100). The buildings were nearly featureless silhouettes when exposing for the sky. To capture the building colors and details, the sky lost all useful detial. It may be possible to capture the DR of this scene with a MF camera. I dunno. It would certainly make the task a whole lot easier if it could!
This was my first work done in CS5. Regarding the white area of the skies, thanks for pointing that out. In the raw files the cloud detail is all there but it’s reduced in the pano merge and completely gone in the web image. After your note, I looked and found the data loss took place during the hdr merge part of the process.
Also part of the problem appears due to the screen capture program I use to make jpg files. What do others use to make web images from .tif or psd files?
I'm going to be busy for a few days but I’ll definitely re-work the image to restore the cloud detail. Thanks again!
Of course there is no silver bullet with either film or digital and I have a high horse I ride about the many prints I see for sale where whole sections of seriously clipped highlights, blocky yellows/reds and funny halos are regarded as acceptable. I find it a constant battle keeping everything within range and it not looking like a CGI generated image when conditions get tricky.
A colour printer friend of mine had a technique for assessing difficult prints, he would make a print and leave it on the table propped up over night. When he came down in the morning whatever his first impression of the print was he went with that for the corrections. I find it very easy to get accustomed to the look of an image when working on it, you can add some saturation and think that's good, work on it for a time add some more saturation and think that's good and so on. Before you know it you have gone over the top a couple of days later you look at it and wonder what you must of been on to make it look like that, less very often is more for my taste.
Good luck with the cloud detail, I do like the shot. It's all good fun I think even if I go out at dawn and come back with a load of rubbish, which quite often is the case.
Cheers,
Kevin.