Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: batmura on October 30, 2013, 05:39:27 pm
-
http://500px.com/photo/50611860
Can anyone tell me what kind of pp might have been done to get the water so white compared to the sky? Normally the colourful sunset sky would reflect its colours on the sea, but I have seen several such images where the water is so smooth and lighter toned. Do they perhaps paint over it with the brush underexposing? If so, how come it looks so clean at the edges of the water?
Please explain this to me like you would explain it to a 2-year old. Thanks!
PS. I use Lightroom for pp.
-
I believe its the long time exposure.
I once made a long time exposure from a similar motive and the sea looked like fog, because foam and the waves coming and going created this kind of white water.
-
... Do they perhaps paint over it with the brush underexposing?...
If they did, they would actually overexpose it in order to make it look lighter
Several things come to mind: a GND was used during capture, as the foreground would be typically underexposed 2-3 stops in backlit situation like this without it. Secondly, the water was not calm, in which case it would indeed reflect the sky color, but most likely more like crashing, white-crested waves. Such an uneven water surface then creates the fog effect in between rocks.
-
Definitely used an ND filter to do achieve this and most likely 2 exposures and did exposure blending. The f/g probably had a longer exposure than the b/g or sky. Just like Slobodan mentioned, the water would have had big waves because there's no trace of reflection on the water.
-
I believe its the long time exposure.
I once made a long time exposure from a similar motive and the sea looked like fog, because foam and the waves coming and going created this kind of white water.
Chris, I realize they used an nd filter, but how come all of the water is so white? The foamy look would normally appear only in the foreground but in this image everything except the rocks is white all the way to the horizon? When I do this type of long expo the front does get white but further behind that it turns back to blue with some reflection of the sky. There is none of it here. I don't think wavy water would cause the entire sea to white.
Roman, can you please be more specific? I don't get it. Thy exposed twice? Then blended the images? Why?
-
Chris, I realize they used an nd filter, but how come all of the water is so white? The foamy look would normally appear only in the foreground but in this image everything except the rocks is white all the way to the horizon? When I do this type of long expo the front does get white but further behind that it turns back to blue with some reflection of the sky. There is none of it here. I don't think wavy water would cause the entire sea to white.
Roman, can you please be more specific? I don't get it. Thy exposed twice? Then blended the images? Why?
It depends on the strengths of the waves and the foam.
if you look the water spot at the lower right corner, where the water seems to be calm it looks like water.
Where there is more movement it looks more whiteish.
Of course there is some sort of toning adjustment, like grad filters or so,
but I believe the main effect is achieved simply be the long exposure and the right pattern of the waves.
The image I posted above was taken with 15 seconds exposure and a compact on a tripod.
No local adjustments were made, just a soft light layer in PS, a B/W layer in luminosity mode for some adjustments and some global level/curves stuff and sharpening. The effect there only comes from the exposure time.
-
... how come all of the water is so white?...
The whole foreground is overexposed (relative to the sky), but the water even more so, since it was lighter than the rocks to begin with.
-
So they used a grad filter selecting everything up to the horizon and overexposed a stop or two? Then how come the rocks in the foreground look perfectly exposed as do the edges of the sea which blend into the land?
-
So they used a grad filter selecting everything up to the horizon and overexposed a stop or two? Then how come the rocks in the foreground look perfectly exposed as do the edges of the sea which blend into the land?
Many ways to achieve this in post: Selective color adjustment: Blue/Cyan lightness increase, local curve adjustment layer, and so on ...
I just posted a different edit of my example above to my Flickr pile of crap:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/feldhaim/10582128084/
Raising the curves a bit in the lights brought it up even more ...
No magic at all.
-
Many ways to achieve this in post: Selective color adjustment: Blue/Cyan lightness increase, local curve adjustment layer, and so on ...
can this be done in Lightroom or are we talking photoshop here?
-
Chris, that second edit is great. I wish you could teach medo that? :)
-
can this be done in Lightroom or are we talking photoshop here?
The last edit of my photo (flickr version) got its final edit in Lightrooms curves.
-
... how come the rocks in the foreground look perfectly exposed as do the edges of the sea which blend into the land?
As I said, rocks are darker than water (especially foamy water), thus exposing them properly overexposes the water.
It shall be noted that it is quite possible that only water was selected in Photoshop and lightened additionally.
-
As I said, rocks are darker than water (especially foamy water), thus exposing them properly overexposes the water.
It shall be noted that it is quite possible that only water was selected in Photoshop and lightened additionally.
do you think they used spot metering on the rocks to overexpose the water?
-
Chris, that second edit is great. I wish you could teach medo that? :)
First I did some basic adjustments in LR.
Then I edited in PS:
- Duplicated Background to a layer and set it to Soft Light, 100%
- Added Levels layer
- Added Black and White conversion layer set to lightness blend mode to adjust lightness of the various colors
- Added a Vibrance layer, With high vibrance and lowered saturation to desaturate the image and just keep some extremer colors up a bit
- Added Input sharpening and creative sharpening layers with Photokit Sharpener
- Added output sharpening for web, reduced size and went back to LR
in LR some final adjustments in curves, where I raised the extreme lights in the water with curves
So - the most important adjustments to get the white water effect were in LR, but the most important technique at all was to chose 15 seconds exposure time.
ADDENDUM: Decided to change composition a bit with a little PS magic. LuLa special edition .. ;)
-
do you think they used spot metering on the rocks to overexpose the water?
Possibly. However, I do not think the effect is a result solely of the light meter measurement. It is either a double exposure, blended in post, or GND, or a combination of both, plus local adjustment.
-
The photoshop steps sound scary, Christoph. I only use LR and Silver Efex for post.
Slobodan, if they didnT spot meter for the rocks how else could they overexpose the water? Matrix metering would render the fg darker, wouldn't it?
Thanks a lot for your help, everyone.
-
The photoshop steps sound scary, Christoph. I only use LR and Silver Efex for post.
Slobodan, if they didnT spot meter for the rocks how else could they overexpose the water? Matrix metering would render the fg darker, wouldn't it?
Thanks a lot for your help, everyone.
Exposure compensation ? Manual Mode?
-
... Slobodan, if they didnT spot meter for the rocks how else could they overexpose the water?...
As I said, it is possible, but not entirely necessary to use a spot meter for that effect, as it can be achieved in post. What I do in situations like this is to take two, three, or more exposures by bracketing around a matrix metering and then blend them manually in post.
-
Just to illustrate what I meant. Also note how the water becomes white, even when mostly calm. The last one is the manually blended final image.
-
I was going to explain, but Slobodan already gave a perfect example of exposure blending.
Roman, can you please be more specific? I don't get it. Thy exposed twice? Then blended the images? Why?
-
Also, you can get away with just 1 exposure and just double process that image in PS and then manually blend it.
-
Also, you can get away with just 1 exposure and just double process that image in PS and then manually blend it.
Yes, that is possible.
However, unless you have one of the modern ISO-less cameras (the likes of Nikon 800, 7000, Pentax K-5, etc.), you are more likely to discover that the danger (read: noise) lurks in the shadows:
-
I totally agree. I only do it with images taken with the 5D Mk3 and the D800, but sometimes the 5D Mk3 doesn't even cut it. Pulling detail from shadows with the 5D Mk3 with minimal noise is sometimes a bust!
Yes, that is possible.
However, unless you have one of the modern OSO-less cameras (the likes of Nikon 800, 7000, Pentax K-5, etc.), you are more likely to discover that the danger (read: noise) lurks in the shadows:
-
Yes, that is possible.
However, unless you have one of the modern ISO-less cameras (the likes of Nikon 800, 7000, Pentax K-5, etc.), you are more likely to discover that the danger (read: noise) lurks in the shadows:
That's an excellent noise reduction. How did you do it?
-
You can create a similar effect to using an ND filter in LR by simply making a series of exposures and then stacking them using LR/Enfuse: http://www.wolfnowl.com/2010/12/photographing-moving-water/
Mike.
52 images
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5121/5318024529_6dfd212d18_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5318024529/)
Waves Rolling In (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5318024529/) by wolfnowl (http://www.flickr.com/people/wolfnowl/), on Flickr
44 images
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3004/5710585499_5cbd5171ea_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5710585499/)
Incoming Tide (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5710585499/) by wolfnowl (http://www.flickr.com/people/wolfnowl/), on Flickr
6 images
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3188/5710574805_fefa5a7955_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5710574805/)
Clover Point Beach (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/5710574805/) by wolfnowl (http://www.flickr.com/people/wolfnowl/), on Flickr
20 images
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6163/6233308685_dd209df00b_b.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/6233308685/)
Elephant Seal (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfnowl/6233308685/) by wolfnowl (http://www.flickr.com/people/wolfnowl/), on Flickr
-
That's an excellent noise reduction. How did you do it?
Well... I did not :)
Perhaps I should have been clearer as to what I was showing in that example. I was responding to Roman's suggestion:
... you can get away with just 1 exposure and just double process that image...
By that he meant that you would take a singe RAW exposure and underexpose it in post by one or two f/stops (to preserve highlights) and send it to Photoshop as a separate file, and than you would take the same single, original exposure and overexpose it in post by one or two f/stops (to open up shadows) and send it to Photoshop as a separate file. In Photoshop you would then blend the two files manually, taking the best parts of both (ie, highlights from one and shadows from the other).
My response to Roman's suggestion was that it is certainly possible to do it that way. However, by overexposing the file, to lighten up the shadows (ie, underexposed areas), you are risking increased noise in those areas.
To demonstrate that, I took two files from my series of three bracketed exposures (reply #19). The one on the right, the noiseless one, is simply a 100% crop of the overexposed, third shot in the bracketed series (ie, where the shadows were properly exposed). The one on the left, the noisy one, comes from the first shot in the bracketed series (the darkest one), which was then overexposed in post to open up the shadows to the same level as in the image on the right.
The bottom line: if you want to avoid/reduce the noise in shadows, give it plenty of light, either by ETTR in a single exposure, or by bracketing.