Mountain Mountain

I don't know many people who didn't shoot the Virgin River Valley in

Zion this Autumn, but I don't think anyone had this composition

either. It's not groundbreaking in any sense for sure, but it's the

combination of elements throughout I found intriguing. It only lasted

a few mornings, and that was it. Rains came, the leaves washed away,

snow covered the peaks and winter was there.

Clearly, there's a lot of post-production that goes into an image like

this in the digital darkroom, but I like to stress than no significant

subject matter here is ever added or removed. I optimize my images.

I do it in every way I can think of and it's more complex than ever.

It starts in the field. You have to have the exposures you need to

put it all together AND get everything else right. This is a blend of

seven exposures taken as quickly as possible.

The detail areas were all shot at f/9 with my Nikon 14-24 on a Canon

5D II. This required two blends for depth of field. There was the

dynamic range - two exposures to control some strong highlights above

and yet retain optimal exposure elsewhere. There were two more

exposures for the water, at f/22. As the leaves floated by, I wanted

to streak the action. Since I can't put a solid ND filter on this

lens, I used f/22 to prolong the exposure, which I was able to get up

to 6 seconds. I combined two successive 6-sec. exposures to get the

streak all the way across the foreground. Lastly, there was some wind

motion in some tree areas, so an f/2.8 exposure was made at ISO 800

and blended. All this in 30 seconds or less so there was tack-sharp

detail throughout and so it looked the way I envisioned it.

It's not for the color film style purists out there, but to me, it's

both a capture and a creation. It's documentary and art combined.

More than a few people lately have asked me about my process in the

darkroom lately but it starts in the field, thinking everything

through. It's WAY more difficult than it was with film.

The "leave a comment for critique" section apparently doesn't do paragraphs. 

I asked my 2-year old son what I should title the photo and went with his suggestion.

I am slowly changing my views to artistic interpretation from the purist stand point. This is so much preferable to seeing outlandish HDR images.

No hand of man is seen here except for a beautiful artistic image. Hats off to you for showing us the way. Just makes it a pleasure to look at the image.

The sky and the color on the great towers is terrific, of course, but I'm particularly fond of the leaf streaks in the creek here. I think the image would stand without them, but they add an extra bit of dynamism that gives an unusual and compelling composition. It is interesting to read your technique for this, too. Being exclusively a film shooter myself, I have no sense of how one would do a depth-of-field blend. If I'd never seen the results, I wouldn't believe in its usefulness for landscape photography, but you make it work here, seemlessly.

Regarding your larger point, I appreciate the defense of your post-exposure-heavy style, but even with your account, I suspect you understate the level of artistry that goes in to a composition like this. What you're describing is a form of Adam's "previsualization", adapted for the digital medium. Fellow PN poster Mark Geistweite has some of this approach in the multiple exposures he combines to increase an images real resolution, and I've even begun to adopt this technique myself (though with slides). The recording of the image—however it is done—is just the first step in a photographic composition. This is certainly in line with traditional notions of fine art photography, of course (Ansel Adams wrote three books on the subject), but it's also common sense. There isn't any point in the exposure to print process beyond which it makes to declare that "here lies no art".

So keep it up, heavy post-exposure processing and all. It's producing some wonderful work. For my own work, I remain a film purist, but I very much enjoy the "impure" work that is represented in your body of work over the past couple of years, this image included.

>> "What you're describing is a form of Adam's "previsualization", adapted for the digital medium"

Exactly. 

And like Adams, I only take what I consider to be a dozen truly memorable images on a good year, and I'm out there most of the year.   Digital doesn't seem to be able to change that.  If it could, this wouldn't be the art that it is. 

man, this is great, love that you described how you did it even though it's more complex than it sounds. beautiful art!

Marc, we've had a lot of discussions here recently regarding digital manipulation.  I've been on the so-called "purist" side, arguing that landscape photography ought to be based on capturing the "decisive moment" when light and composition come together to form a compelling image of the natural world.  Some photographers use digital manipulation to make the decisive moment irrelevant; they create the necessary elements digitally.  As a result, many people (photographers and non-photographers alike) are asking, "Is it real?" whenever they see a compelling photograph.  They want to know if the beauty and grandeur represented by the photo was actually witnessed and therefore represents a real experience, or whether the beauty and grandeur was created by tweaking a base image on the computer to create something that essentially was not witnessed but instead arose out of the creative mind of the photographer / digital artist.

I think there's a real difference between digital manipulation and digital processing.  Digital manipulation creates something that wasn't there:  color saturation, added or subtracted elements in the scene, changes in color, etc.  That's a very general statement, and certainly this general statement doesn't address other important aspects of photography (e.g., conversion to B&W).  

Digital processing is another matter.  I view digital processing as overcoming the inherent limitations of a camera and the light-capturing device (whether film or sensor).  You've used digital processing to address limitations regarding depth of field.  You've also used digital processing to address the limited range of light that can be captured in a single exposure.  You've also used it to control the adverse effects of wind.  The motion of the leaves in the stream was primarily the product of the shutter speed of the camera.

So while I'm generally in the purist camp regarding digital manipulation, that's primarily in reaction to the use of computer software to create rather than to capture the beauty and grandeur of nature.  Some who argue against me do so by saying they are artists and the manipulated work is their artistic expression.  To that, I say fine, but let's call it what it really is:  computer art or digital art.  I really like computer/digital art; it can be striking, beautiful, full of meaning, and other positive attributes that we ascribe to good art.  Unfortunately, too many photographers (IMO) are advertising their digital manipulation as a real photograph, as a real capture of what they saw.  My favorite example is neon-green algae on the shadow side of an intertidal rock as the sun is setting below the horizon.  That this kind of photograph is real is nonsense.  To pass it off as such is dishonest.  It is, however, digital art, and if it's represented as that I have no problem.

Unfortunately, computer/digital art is relatively new, and we don't yet have standards or the proper language to describe it.  In addition, the transition between photography and digital art is currently impossible to describe; the point at which a photograph become digital art cannot be defined, at least not with widespread agreement.  It's all too new.

But back to your photograph... I've always been impressed with two aspects of your photography:  the extreme lengths you will go to (in terms of time and effort) to get to the place where great photographs can be found, and the processing skills you employ to overcome the inherent limitations of the camera that enable the camera to be more like (not exactly like) the human eye, especially in terms of seeing light.  You capture beautiful and compelling photographs, and "Mountain Mountain" (give your son credit: there are two distinct peaks!) is a good example. 

There's only one aspect of your photography that, if I were in your shoes, I might be concerned about.  That's the fact that I can usually tell when a photograph is one of your photographs before I see your name attached to it.  That could be a compliment if it's because you're more successful than most others in the skillful blending of various exposures to produce a striking photograph.  On the other hand, I might be able to identify your photographs if the processing is giving them all a similar "quality" in a way that I really can't describe or define at the moment.  I really don't know.  I wish I could know for myself why I'm often able to identify your photographs, but at this moment I don't know.  Because you produced them, you may have better insight as to why this is so (if, in fact it is so; I'm just one person with that opinion, and perhaps I'm the only person with that opinion).

I like your description of your process as one that captures and creates.  Your method of creation, however, rests on that which was captured.  It doesn't come forth by pushing a saturation slide way to the right, and it doesn't come by combining elements of separate images.  I wouldn't classify this as computer-based art, but rather as photography that has used digital processing tools in ways that were not possible a decade ago to make up for limitations of the camera.  Personally, I don't even consider this to be equivalent to a digital darkroom in the way that Ansel Adams changed the B&W tones of his images in his chemical darkroom.  I think your process of creation is primarily a process of revealing what was there.

All IMHO, of course.  Cheers.

Your skills, innovation, and hard work, have produced a remarkable work of art Marc! This has it all:  a gorgeous sky, superb detail throughout, lovely foreground color, and excellent composition. The color streaks in the water add interest to the foreground, and help make the shot stand out. Your new naming procedure is also notable ;-) Tell you son that was well done from me! The mountains really caught my eye too!

All the best,
Neil

PDE

I really like your job Marc, it is veryr inspiring for me.  This is a real master piece, The details, tones and composition are just perfect.  I would like see a larger version of this shot. Thanks for explain us the "making of" it is very helpful and it shows us the passion for photographhy you have. Congrats. 7.

Pure Magic! Beautiful in every respect. 7+

Lamento no poder fiarme del traductor así que con su permiso lo diré en español y después lo que ha traducido Google.
Es usted un genio capturando excelentes imágenes y creando después arte con ellas. Pero no es esta una de su mejores obras.
En esta veo demasiadas cosas interesantes, hojas, movimiento, transparencias, arboles, montañas, nubes de colores.
Felicidades usted un artista y un referente para muchos de nosotros.

 Sorry I can not confide the translator so with your permission I do in Spanish and then translated what Google.
Are you a genius capturing great images and then creating art with them. But this is not one of his best works.
In this I see too many interesting things, leaves, movement, transparency, trees, mountains, clouds of colors.
Congratulations you are an artist and a benchmark for many of us.

Saludos

tones like a painting. i don't think it could have been done more good, than this.

Marc,  This is a great composition.  You have an extraordinary good eye and technical skills.  Thank you for telling us how you made this piece of art.  This certainly is the difference between just capturing a moment and the artistic creation.  Aloha!

I like the image a lot.  However, without getting into the processing discussion, I don't think this looks like any landscape I have ever seen.  I think you have created an surreal technical image masterpiece, but IMHO looks a little artificial.  Reading your post I believe this is what you were trying to do so I think you have succeeded marvelously!

John (or anybody), if this looks 'artificial' to you, I'd love to know if you can pinpoint why that is.  Me, personally, I'm thinking it has something to do with the range of color in the sky, particularly the bright yellow.   This is all just from the RAW file of course, but I don't think there's anything here in the blending that would cause that look, so maybe it's the color?  I am not now, nor am I ever, going for "artificial".   Optimized, sure, but I want the scene to look like something that can actually happen (or my photographic interpretation of an 'actual' something with the camera, like leaf streaks) though, and I think that yellow band is too yellow.  Aside from that, I can't put my finger on anything out of place.

Marc, nor can I.  Zsolt said "it looks like a painting."  John used the word "surreal." I said that I can spot one of your photographs even before I see your name attached to it.   I honestly don't know what, in particular, I'm seeing that tells me this looks like a Marc Adamus photo.  For a while I thought it might be your particular process for sharpening, but I doubt that's it.  Maybe it's as I tried to suggest previously:  the blending is so detailed and perfect that I'm just not used to seeing a photo that has been so carefully and skillfully processed.  I'm used to seeing heavy shadows where you have revealed details.  I'm used to seeing blown highlights where you have tamed the light sufficiently to reveal detail.  In my mind, that's always been your trademark:  very skillful handling of light throughout the photo.  Whether that handling of light has produced what looks like a painting to some, something surreal to others, or something distinctive to my eye is only a guess.

I think,and Marc, correct me, if I'm wrong, the most important thing in achieving this kind of picture, with these tones , that colud look surreal to somebody, is the right moment of day, with the perfect lights. the rest are details.

I love the tones. Yes somewhat surreal but well executed ... even in the water swirl.

Marc - Conceiving the final image is now more critical than ever, as you have demonstrated.  Film had its limitations, and clearly relatively few people had access to darkrooms to do any additional work there.  The digital age has brought about accessability to option when creating an image like no other time I suspect, and these options are available to us all-not just those with access to the traditional darkrooms.  In addition, the flexibility to deal with multiple ISOs, merged DOF, etc has opened up the creativity envelope to any who care to try. 

The glow I witnessed on those red cliffs, though on the Watchman was quite spectacular and I think your interpretation is very believable.  I commend you for all of your forethought and pulling it off under quickly changing light.

Regards, Harry

I would concur with Harry -- I think his is a pretty good summary of what new tools can do for the person who understands and uses them.

To me, this looks like one of your least processed images. Its a great representation of this beautiful scene and you get major kudos for an original comp or s shot to death area! Everything looks natural to my eye, except for the obvious leaf streaks in the stream (which adds another level of beauty to this shot).

Hey Marc - Noticed I forgot to mention from a color standpoint, I notice that many of your sunrise image tend to have a magenta cast throughout FG as well as the sky.  I have tried to pay special attention when taking shots at those time to try and reproduce the shaded areas not usually affected by the magenta in the sky.  It usualy means shifting more to the cyan in blacks.  In this image, there is a lot of reflective area, so that may account for the cast.  I was wondering if you have found a need or desire to color correct for this magenta  cast?

Thanks, Harry