Steps to create a photo like this...

[euancranston]

<p>hi there,<br>

i would like someone to give me the full steps you would take to create an image like this. i realise there is photoshop involved here too (or at least i think so!)</p>

<p>what lens you would use<br>

what filter etc...</p>

<p>http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/973884</p>

<p>if you need more info, let me know!</p>

<p>euan</p>

[john_a5]

<p>The lens would be a pretty wide one. The person who did that shot was using a 10-20mm, which on his camera was like a 16-32mm on a full format camera. I would guess he was shooting pretty much at the 10mm end.</p>

<p>There are a lot of ways to arrive at an image like this. Some will use graduated ND filters, some will bracket to be sure they are covered and some will finish with a lot of post work--most will end up with a fair amount of post to get this shot.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the information could have been gotten in one raw file and either pulled out in post or in different outputs from the raw. I prefer to work more this way than to deal with graduated filters, which create as many issues as they solve IMO. But there was definitely some fine tuning in post regardless to present the tonalities as they are here.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><br />The commentary says it is taken with a 400D and a Sigma 10 to 22. <br /><br />It looks like more toward the 10mm end of that zoom and likely with a mid range aperture I guess around F/8 or F/11 because of the DoF. <br /><br />My guess is the Photographer used a tripod, because at dawn there is not much light and I think the Photographer is reasonably experienced enough to use a mid to low ISO- I think maybe ISO400 or IS0200.<br /><br />I don't think there was any filter used for effect, though she could have had a "Protection Filter" on.<br /><br />I have taken shots similar (at that time of morning) and have NOT used HDR technique (High Dynamic Range) - so I don't think that would be necessary and taking into account other matters I don’t think this Photographer used that technique either - as it seems to be just one of many she took on that day and she was playing with the vertical framing. I think she probably pulled out the exposure of the sky with “Recovery” in Post Production and increased the shadow detail of the rocks and added contrast and maybe played with White Balance or Colour in some way<br /><br />It is very likely if you leave a comment on the thread itself, Rebecca will answer with all the detail you want.<br /><br />WW</p>

[chris_autio]

<p>Super wide angle, probably a 10 or 12 mm on a DSLR. 18 mm on a SLR if it were scanned. It is way over-the-top post work. Almost as if the bottom part doesn't match the top third. Reality? Hardly. But that may not be the intent. Upon closer examination, I would say it is two photos joined, maybe from separate times of the day, maybe from two separate continents. </p>

[William Michael]

<p >I cannot concur on either point Chris.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Bamburgh Castle is a well known and an oft visited tourist spot and also is a local destination for events, weddings and functions and the area is often photographed - The rocks in the foreground are typical of the area.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As to reality - I can conceive that the light depicted is similar to what one would "see" at dawn, on site. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[charlesheckel]

<p>The photographer says it was taken at a particular place during the early morning, but she and Chris may both be right. The shadows on the rocks are hard-edged from direct sunlight, and the castle and beach beyond the rocks show no shadows, the rocks are contrasty, and the castle and beach are soft, and there's a definite boundary between the two. I think masking and a local boost in contrast, and quite possibly a montage from an exposure taken somewhat later in the morning.</p>

[euancranston]

<p>all...thank you for your replies! very helpful...</p>

<p>i've seen this type off effect quite a lot and was interested in how it was done.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes, I saw that. (The "light effect" on the rocks in the foreground). I am still not convinced it is a montage . . . I am not arguing that it is not a possibility - I am just not convinced that, that is what was done. So I would guess the other way that's all: i.e. a single exposure. But one of these two opinions is wrong - and I am more than happy if it is mine - I was not "competing".<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>I think there are enough clouds that the shadows in the back half of the shot are believable. There could only have been harder sunlight right where we see it and this sort of phenomena is not that uncommon. On the other hand, the shadows seem way too short for as early(low Sun) as to how the sky appears. The way the clouds are lit, I guess I would not have expected any light in the narrow areas between the rocks. Possibly some flash was used to create the harder light or it is a combo of images.</p>

<p>With the comment right after mine above, I wasn't referring to using HDR to create images, but I have a bit of a feeling that this image might have employed it from the way certain tones are presented here.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>yes we are all puzzling over it . . . I think it would be more likely HDR than a cut and paste montage:<br>

so my guesses are, in order:<br>

1. >Single exposure<br>

2. >HDR Multiple Exposure<br>

3. >Montage from two or more exposures<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

 

[mark_ethridge]

<p>On first glance, I thought the exposure between the foreground and the background/sky just didn't quite match. If I had to guess, I'd say it's HDR. I wouldn't rule out a single exposure, but it would be a one of those rare occasions where the photographer was in just the right place at just the right time with just the right sky with tripod set up ready to shoot. That never happens to me.</p>

[leon_b1]

<p>From what I know of British lighting conditions, I find myself suspecting that there must be a touch of flash used here for the foreground - carefully balanced with the ambient light and probably coupled with some work in post to increase contrast.</p>

<p>It might just be naturally possible to get that kind of light falling on the rocks at dawn but not, I suspect, with the sky as shown in the background.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p >I confirm, from first source, the image was 3 exposures, HDR, all taken at the same time and place.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[euancranston]

<p>thanks for the responses all. im just reading up on HDR now!</p>

<p>is this a method which the photography camp is divided on? i.e. some love it/some hate it?</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"is this a method which the photography camp is divided on? i.e. some love it/some hate it?"</em></strong><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong>I don't think so . . . </strong></em>There are many Landscape Photographers who use HDR Technique. The thing is Digital has less latitude than film, so a technique around that is “necessary”<em><strong> - </strong></em>but some Landscape Photographers still use film. <br /><br />I think there are more "passionate" topics which have two distinct sides:<br />> RAW vs JPEG<br />> UV filter or NOT<br />> Value of Bokeh<br />> Prime vs Zoom<br />> Everyone should learn with Film, first.<br /><br />WW</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I would disagree about how HDR is viewed and say that there is a divide out there. The divide is mostly over the poor, and over, use of HDR. But HDR used well, which is rare from what I have seen, is just another tool. As soon as a shot looks like HDR, then the HDR probably was poorly done. The shot you reference didn't need it, if it was used. That is another thing you see a lot, HDR used when it really isn't needed, it can become a crutch and keep you from learning good post processing techniques. There are not quick fixes to getting to a good image.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I would disagree about how HDR is viewed and say that there is a divide out there. The divide is mostly over the poor, and over, use of HDR. . . etc"</em></strong><br>

<br>

Good post. Good logic. <br>

<br>

I don't play with HDR a lot - I am not interested that much, and I am therefore ignorant of nuances and fine argument about it.<br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

On first look at the image referenced I though HDR would not be necessary, either, but as I understand it, the Photographer (Leigh), thought otherwise. I understand Leigh does not use HDR much now either – so I guess there could be a black and white view, amongst landscape people. <br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[euancranston]

<p>thanks for the posts guys...i've done some research on it and understand the pro's cons. i've seen some terrible images, you only need to google hdr to see some horrors!<br>

although a beginner, landscape photography is my main focus and i think black and white is a more interesting subject</p>

[rdjc]

<p>William seems to be on the right track with the suggestion of the use of HDR. You can take three exposures at once with bracketing; set camera to bracketing as follows;( +2, 0, -2 )then combine the three exposures with HDR software. That will give you the effect you see in that photo. Regards....Bob</p>