"Wave of Emotion"

This was a gift from my wife, Xiaoping! While vacationing in Tahoe, I went out one morning to catch the sunrise, setting out at about 4 am to arrive at Emerald Bay before first light. My efforts were less than rewarding unfortunately. After I returned we then headed out as a family to swim at the lake, but I was indeed tired. As we concluded the day, I was ready to head back to the condo, have a glass of wine and dinner and hit the sack. Xiaoping remarked that the clouds were developing and that maybe I should get back over to the lake for a sunset. I suddenly wasn’t so tired. I often state that Ansel Adams’ original negatives were very flat compared to his rich and dynamic prints. This statement might lead some to conclude that the original scene was in turn flat compared to the print. We will never know for certain, but I contend that his prints are simply accentuated reproductions of the original scenes, scenes that possessed much of the drama exhibited in his prints. His negatives were flat for a reason. His desire was to make a flat negative so he could retain as much tonal range as possible. As well, with a flat negative, he could infuse his trademark darkroom adjustments, which allowed him to craft his original impression of the scene which he witnessed. If his negatives were contrasty, he had less room for adjustment. It wasn’t unusual for him to administer multiple adjustments while processing his prints. The RAW data from the digital camera is much like an Ansel Adams negative, flat with not much punch if exposed correctly. Many contend that multiple adjustments in Photoshop are manipulations of the truth. No doubt, aggressively wide sweeping adjustments can result in over-saturated and posterized images. On the other hand, it is certainly necessary IMHO that numerous moves in Photoshop are required to mold a RAW file into a digital file that recreates the original scene of our impression. This image alone required over 20 separate layers (I say required. It probably could look much the same with far fewer adjustments, but that’s me, the perfectionist). Most of these layers are minor local adjustments, tweaks to render correct colors, layer masks to blend three exposures and other masks to selectively sharpen the scene, among other innocuous tweaks. As an example, I believe that the trees would not appear as pure silhouettes when we view the actual scene. Of the three blended exposures, the longest was recorded at F16 and 10 seconds. As I write this, the lighting here in my office at F16 would require over 20 seconds, yet I can see well enough to read fine print from a magazine or peruse a detailed map. Hence the need for highly detailed brushwork to render trees that have some detail. Keep in mind, the objective is to transform a two dimensional media into something that hopefully recreates a three dimensional visual impression. Is this too many adjustments? Is the painting finished or does it need just one more quick detailed brushstroke in the foliage? My wife was generous enough to allow me to shoot this scene while she took care of our then 5 month old son. While shooting, I knew I needed sharp focus, accurate exposure and proper framing and arrangement of the defining elements. Even given that, I knew my work was only halfway completed, if that. Is the scene believable (with the exception of the softening of the choppy waves from the 10 second exposure)? It looks just like I remembered it, one of the most vivid and electrifying sunsets I have ever seen and I can’t thank my wife enough! If you took the time to read this, then you need to get back to work. If you stopped by to comment, then please take your time. Work can wait!!

The Sierra Wave is well known for it's beauty. While not rare, it is a lucky occurrence

to witness, especially if you catch it being illuminated by a vivid setting sun. The

following text is a continuation of my lengthy discussion regarding the use of

Photoshop. You know, I really have better and more important things to do, but they

still wait while I temporarily ignore them. Thanks for any offerings!!

Nice shot. Beautiful colours and composition. Love the slow shutter speed effect. Congrats.

Mark...  Work is overrated :-)

Well, while scrolling just now this marvelous scene popped up and without even looking I knew it was yours.  Exquisitely captured and presented.  Sorry, I can't compete with you in verbosity but you know how much I like your stuff.  Thanks for sharing... Mike

Thanks Raymond, Mike and Brendan! Mike, no one can compete with me in verbosity; no one has the time! Well, I don't either but my fingers get going and I can't stop them. Thanks Brendan for your vote of approval. I really admire your seascapes and coming from you, that's quite the complement! 

Well, isn't this grand?  What a craftsman you are!  The depth you've achieved is really remarkable, and the colors are over the top.  Your shutter speed is perfect, and I like the vertical shot.....it allows that 3-dimensional aspect to be better realized.  And yes, I read every word.  :-)  I can learn a lot from your generous outpourings here on PN.  :-)  We had a grand time in N. CA....then again a few weeks later in the Pacific NW.   Images coming in due course. 

Hi Christal!! How are you? Thanks for reading my "Photographic War and Peace". It's been awhile since your trip. We are waiting patiently for your captures!!

Phenomenal, exquisite, and absolutely gorgeous. Yes, I agree with you - extensive post processing is sometimes necessary to accurately depict the scene as you witnessed it. That is something which you have performed flawlessly here. If you have the tools, then by all means, use them! Absolutely fantastic work, Mark.

Wade

Nice work.. like a picture of painter.. One could want to hang on wall with huge dimentions..

I wonder the trees and clouds with 10 seconds is so sharp.. if not; How was the picture in that way?

It seemed to me that the blueish region above the image does not proper for image. So I tried to crop that region; So I had to crop from below for proper dimensions. Actually bottom could not be cropped..

congrats.. OB

Nice work.. like a picture of painter.. One could want to hang on wall with huge dimentions..

I wonder the trees and clouds with 10 seconds is so sharp.. if not; How was the picture in that way?

It seemed to me that the blueish region above the image does not proper for image. So I tried to crop that region; So I had to crop from below for proper dimensions. Actually bottom could not be cropped..

congrats.. OB

Aplusses. aplausses, aplausses.....

it looks 100% natural to me. great work and post processing. very good photo.

Mark,

yet again another superb image. I have to admit I used to be of the opinion that if an image took longer than five or ten minutes to process then it was bin fodder. I have now changed my views and have also been using many layers to add contrast and saturation in just the areas that (from my viewpoint anyway) require them. If the main aim of your many adjustments is to render the scene as closely to how you remember it then that has got to be right and this scene looks completely believable to me in both exposure and colour, simply stunning.

All the best, Dave. 

Thanks Wade, Ozgur, Javier, Zsolt and David!! Wade, as I said, I probably could have used half as much in processing and still rendered something close to this. I am a real tinkerer and I love Photoshop as a creative tool. Ozgur, I like your crop also, but I will stay with the current orientation. As far as the trees and clouds remaining unblurred by the long exposure; it was a very calm evening, so the trees were fairly motionless. There was a mild chop to the water. As for the clouds, the Lenticular formation is relatively high and is not necessarily a storm type cloud, so it is slow moving. David, some of my treatments are probably a manipulation of the original RAW file, so some could contend that it is not what the camera recorded. I don't care how the camera records the scene because I feel the camera will never record a scene such as this in the same way our own visual acuity does. Therefore, I will selectively sharpen areas that recede into the distance or I may provide more clarity to near objects and allow far objects to appear more hazy and less saturated or contrasty. As well, this scene will be recorded by a camera as silhouetted trees. Do we actually see in silhouette? Perhaps almost in silhouette, but not the type that a camera spits out. Everything I do is to hopefully present my recollection or impression of a scene on a two dimensional plane. Providing scale and dimension on a two dimensional plane requires some manipulation to achieve that effect. I appreciate your taking time to view and read my rather long winded exhortation. Thanks to all!!

Surreal and beautiful. Great colors and effects.  I did read your comments, but wasn't clear on something. Did you shoot three exposures and put them together in HDR? I saw you did many layers in PS, and I could see the value of layers to process in different ways different parts of the image.   

Mark - This is just an ellectric sky!  So often we encounter with an fantastic sky and nothing else of interest to compose an image.  When it all comes together a in this one, kaboom-magic.  The rocks pick up the sky color - one of my favorite details of a sky like this with wet rocks.  My only idea to simplify the far right, where the tree is edged off the photo might be to crop a little tight on the right to one of the other trees.  Some top/bottom or both might have to be sacraficed to avoid a book mark format.  Big Ahhh for this one.

Harry

Thanks Anne!! I shoot several exposures, choose the best of the series and then blend them manually, as opposed to loading them into an HDR software and letting the software do the blending. It's my preference because I like to have all the control. In this case, I used three exposures to create this image (F16 at 2 seconds, 4 seconds and ten seconds). Thanks again!! 

Thanks Harry!! You jumped in while I was responding to Anne and I didn't see your comment. Well, that's a tough one, because as I crop inside the largest tree, I also will be snagging half of that delicious slippery rock holding the right corner and most of the rocks above, so while it could work, I'll choose to keep the resolution and avoid the bookmark orientation.  I think that cropping may give the rocks a cutoff look as well. I'm gonna give a look, though. Still, an appropriate comment and suggestion. Thanks!!

Whew! Without reading all the comments: I could not agree more with your fascinating explanation of the philosophy of the flat Master File. Yes, the end justifies the means at least in photographic art. You have me beat with 20 adjustment layers and I'm quite amazed but if you needed them in your creative search to get where you are then fine; 30 if you needed (that would be one hell of a large file). When I make my exposures, I have an idea of what the final product should look like, but the ACR and PS process will sometimes draw into surprising new directions. I feel that is acceptable and part of the creative process.

Oh yes, your image... First of all, thank Xiaoping for all of us. The thing that drew my eye first surprisingly was not the brilliant clouds, but the sublime water color. To me that just makes the shot. One does not see such color in disturbed water often. One question here is that the water color tends more towards that cold magenta tones than the warm red-orange of the clouds. Great image.

Regards, Marc

Hey Marc, I appreciate you taking a moment to digest my dissertation. Many of the layers might be local adjustments, only affecting a small portion of the scene. As far as file size, I don't necessarily keep all the layers. If it is not a significant layer, then I will flatten as I go. I tend, however, to keep the global layers so if I change my mind later, I can go back and drop the adjustment or tweak the layer. As an example, I find that low light situations make the distant mountains go really deep blue which pulls the eye away from the main scene, so I will select the distant ridges and neutralize them to a degree, yet keep some of that dusky color. I have also begun to add a minimal contrast layer at the end which I use for web viewing, but I will drop it when I go to print. As for the water, well let's just say I plead creative liberty here. The color is accurate for the most part; I may have warmed it a touch. Here's the deal. When choppy water is exposed for a long time, it begins to blur and get milky. As well, it begins to average out it's reflection and since it is choppy, it reflects various things, not just sky. In this case, however, the longer exposure to get a silky, milky, fog like water was also the brightest exposure. If I made no adjustments, the water would be far brighter than the sky and that don't work for me. Meanwhile, I wanted to retain the brightness in the balance of the foreground such as the rocks. Therefore, in order to get the water to match the deeper sky, I selected it, feathered it aggressively and then pulled it down in tone while keeping the rocks at a higher value. Most likely, the water will pick up the bluer sky directly above when it is choppy. If it were glass calm, it would then give a truer reflection of the lenticular clouds, like a mirror. If there's one thing that looks askew in HDR or over-gradding, it's lake water that is brighter than the sky. If I used an HDR software, the software would want to blend the three exposures, another reason why I blend my own. Blending the blurred water and the choppy water is a sure visual sign of HDR, much like blended clouds that have moved from one exposure to the next. In actuality, I don't truly blend exposures, I drop in portions of different exposures and then blend the transitions with feathered masks. This scene has one exposure for the sky, one exposure that provides a transition from sky to foreground and finally a third exposure for the foreground. The water could be considered a fourth since I deepened it's tone through the use of a layer mask. My goal was to answer your query in 500 words or less. How'd I do! 

Great shot and atmosphere, fantastic light-colors = 7

7, awesome image perfect in every way.