Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Holy %@#$  (Read 5290 times)

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 223
Holy %@#$
« on: July 01, 2014, 08:42:52 PM »

Holy %@#$  was my first thought too! Fantastic shot!
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1159
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2014, 11:43:15 AM »

Ominous weather over the luminous landscape. Lol!
I certainly hope not!  :D
Eduardo
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9365
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2014, 12:05:47 PM »

It must be the same storm that battered Chicago a few days later. There were three tornado touchdowns in Illinois that evening, one was just 7 miles (12 km) south of my house. Photographed by my friend, Elena Korbut:

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2014, 02:02:00 PM »

beautifully shot and appropriately titled. Ah, the joys of living in the Midwest/Plains (yes, Ontario is "Midwest").
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2014, 08:35:47 PM »

Very well composed. I like it a lot.
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2014, 09:10:47 AM »

Michael, can you tell us a little about what PP you did on the cloud?  I have the devil of a time capturing the dimensionality of clouds that is so evident in your image.  Thanks!
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2014, 09:53:04 PM »

I agree, the detail is great.

Something that would probably sell like mini donuts at the fair, would be a book by Michael or Kevin that has a tip with each image. Whatever they feel would be the most use to photographers in similar circumstances. I would be all over that.
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 11:42:02 PM »

Looks like a pretty standard (but aggressive) clarity (mid tone contrast) adjustment? 
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2014, 12:39:11 AM »

Looks like a pretty standard (but aggressive) clarity (mid tone contrast) adjustment? 

Having seen similar storm clouds recently I bet it is very close to what it looked like being there. It is not synthetic drama.
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2014, 08:56:35 AM »

Michael, can you tell us a little about what PP you did on the cloud?  I have the devil of a time capturing the dimensionality of clouds that is so evident in your image.  Thanks!

Post processing quite minimal. I had exposed ETTR, to avoid blowing out the cloud highlights – the dynamic range was huge. I then used the Shadow slider to open up the foreground, because it was of course quite underexposed. This meant that the overall image was a bit flat, so I used a large brush with clarity and painted the sky.

Not all that different that I would have done on the chemical darkroom, except that it would have taken 3 hours, using lots of hand waving and chemical bleaches.

The point is that the image had inherent drama, and I used the basic tools in Lightroom to enhance what was there to create an image that was close to the way that the scene looked to my eye / memory.

What's felt good is when I show a print to my son, who had seen it with me, he said – "That's it. That's what we saw." He had taken an iPhone shot, which captured the image, but not the "feeling: of what we saw.

Michael


Michael
Logged

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures
Re: Holy Real
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2014, 02:02:02 PM »

"The point is that the image had inherent drama…"

I found that the point is that every aspect of picture production from data acquisition to pre-press and publication details is important.  Michael undermines his own statement regarding "the point"  with the tale of his son, who "had taken an iPhone shot, which captured the image, but not the 'feeling' of what we saw": that iPhone recording had the same inherent drama, but not the same effect when used to produce a picture.  ("One day, son, you'll have a camera as big as Dad's.")

As such, it is more than a bit disingenuous (imho, obviously — and I mean disingenuous in the same way Michelangelo disingenuously claimed to have learned to carve from his wet-nurse) to dismiss shooting for exposure (ETTR), altering the exposure, then selectively altering the edge transitions and very-small-form luminances as "minimal" processing.  That what used to take 3 hours (per Michael) with matter now takes a few minutes with software (and a highly-trained eye and hand) does not make it "minimal", except perhaps in duration of effort.  The same duration of effort, in other hands, with other equipment (light recorder) and tools (software) would not, and could not, produce the same result.

I see two things at play here.  First is the fundamental prejudice among photographers that the picture is somehow "real" and that all they do is help guide it to an accurate rendering of what was present at the time of data recording.  Pictures are illusions; photography is an art of illusion.  Hundreds of thousands of person-hours of engineering have gone into creating machines that let us easily create these illusions.  The ready availability of illusion-making does not make the illusion any more real than if it had been blown from iron-oxide dust onto a cave wall.  I recognize (one should read that word slowly) my cat in pictures I have of her; she does not, and not because she is uncaring of my compulsion to make pictures.

Second is the age-old artist's ploy (cited above): "O shucks, it's nothing".  This persists because it works by inflating the artist and his/her works in the minds of the artist's public — one might think of it as "the impenetrable opacity of genius", or, simply, magic.  In a mercantile sphere this can be, with some reservations, recommended.  But it is a poor posture for a teacher to take.  All art is ... artificial.  If dimensionally in cloud-forms is the artifice that you desire, then — and Michael has both given and swept aside this advice — make sure you record usable data in each pixel (don't "blow" any highlights), lower the luminance of the highest luminance pixels in the cloud-forms, and increase the edge contrast, and the mid-contrast as judged by the luminance range of the cloud-forms.  That is artifice on artifice — what might be admitted to be clambering towards high art.

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5986
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2014, 03:04:46 PM »

I had exposed ETTR, to avoid blowing out the cloud highlights – the dynamic range was huge.

So, you did ETTR to avoid blowing the highlights?

:~)
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2014, 06:25:51 PM »

Sigh. Common Jeff, you known what I mean. I controlled the exposure to maximize it without blowing the highlights.

As for Mr Krieger.. what on earth are you saying? Sorry, but your comment is so annoyingly obtuse so as to completely evade me.

Michael


Logged

Krug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 121
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2014, 06:32:52 PM »

Jeff i think perhaps Michael missed out the (OJ) in the ETTR
i.e. E(OJ)TTR - Expose (only just) To The Right "to avoid blowing the highlights - don't you think ??

p.s. I have the exact same image which I captured over our land at about the same time - although we don't know each other i happen to live just 20 miles south of Michael and my wife called me to see the 'amazing cloud'.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2014, 07:33:21 PM »

I have the devil of a time capturing the dimensionality of clouds…

Have you seen Charles Cramer's LuLa article "Tonal Adjustments in the Age of Lightroom 4" ?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5986
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »

Common Jeff, you known what I mean.

LOL...so, now you are calling me "Common"?

Yes, I deduced what you meant...you used ETTR but stopped short of clipping...so you did ETT slight R...

:~)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9365
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2014, 09:37:36 PM »

...you used ETTR but stopped short of clipping...so you did ETT slight R...

To be truly pedantic, when one says ETTR, adding "but stopped short of clipping" is simply redundant. Because, by definition, ETTR implies no clipping. ;)

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2014, 09:48:09 PM »

To be truly pedantic, when one says ETTR, adding "but stopped short of clipping" is simply redundant. Because, by definition, ETTR implies no clipping. ;)

I think it's safe to assume that.  It is not pedantic.  It is mentioned from the get-go:
Quote
Basically the ideal exposure is as Michael describes: get your histogram as close to the right side as possible but not so close as to cause the over exposure indicator to flash. The ideal exposure ensures that you have maximum number of levels describing your image without loosing important detail in the highlights. The closer you get to this ideal then the more of those levels are being used to describe your shadows.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

(If that is obtuse — let alone "annoyingly obtuse", I will give up.)

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2014, 12:14:06 AM »

That post was about exposure? Thanks for clearing that up.
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4770
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2014, 04:10:30 AM »

Basically the ideal exposure is as Michael describes: get your histogram as close to the right side as possible but not so close as to cause the over exposure indicator to flash. The ideal exposure ensures that you have maximum number of levels describing your image without loosing important detail in the highlights. The closer you get to this ideal then the more of those levels are being used to describe your shadows.

If someone does as suggested using raw then there is - in my experience - a 2/3 stop of underexposure before clipping occurs. A little flashing of overexposure is good. Experiment by taking an image with different f/stops and load them into Rawdigger and that will give you a more "accurate" idea of clipping.

http://www.rawdigger.com/
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up