Awaken II

Here's a rework of an earlier image. Comments?

Speechless. You are so lucky that you caught such a beautiful moment...I'm gelous

This is Amazing , Very powerful nature photo

You catched this mountain at a special moment. The cloud waves above the mountain are amazing. However the photo is not fully convincing. I guess you increased the saturation in the cloud together with the adjoining sky where it looks fake (less in this submission than in the first one). However the weak part of the photo is in the dark right side of the mountain. I suggest to select the whole mountain (without the sky and the water) and to adjust the local contrast by using the unsharp mask in about 20%/60/0 setting. After that some brightness/contrast adjustment in the dark mountain slope will make it perfect. Hope this is helpful. Karl

Great capture, Rick. This was for sure a great moment!

Very good shot. I like very much the colors and the tones. Regards

Bravo Rick...........Stunning, simply beautiful!!

What awesome colors...that cloud with the blue sky is spectacular!

Karl,

I've been struggling with the processing on this one and I sure appreciate your commentary. I'll give it a try sometime this weekend and see how that looks.

Rick, I'll be completely honest about this one and say that in seeing it the first time, it looks off. It looks fake, but I know you were there and saw that cloud. A lot of photographers won't catch this but I do. And I'll be that there are plenty of editors, judges, art directors, artists and particularly observant enthusists that will.

 

I'll also say that you need ND grads. Forget what anyone else says - this is a 1-minute PS job with a 2-soft ND grad with flawless results. The snow highlights would have held nicely, and just a little dodging would have brought that mountain out perfectly. That's it! The key to natural looking, balanced images is using blends and HDR absolutely as little as possible, and keeping it localized at best when they are used. I've built an entire portfolio that is almost entirely blend-free, and no one deals with a greater range of light and exposure than I do regularly. ND grads would make a world of difference in your work and time spent in PS. I don't envy you, trying to bring a natural look to this image. I'd have a tough time doing it, for sure. People are always asking me what PS secrets I know that they don't when too much PS IS the problem they fail to overcome. The combination of grads and minor touch-ups, usually with a dodge/burn is pretty much it. I'm not convinced you would have even needed a grad at all here. Just a properly rotated polarizer and some post-exposure modification to tonal range might have done it. So there's my two cents - more like ten actually, but you know where I stand, and you have so much potential as a photographer, it would be unfair not to at least throw that out there consider. It's really tough to blend and get natural looking results all the time, and it's always going to cost you plenty more in PS.

 

The cloud here looks set behind the mountain in distant fashion. Like it was never part of the scene, and like it could have been added in from any other image. It's quite a bit too dark, comparatively, with the mountain below. And the lake is several stops lighter than either - the opposite of how the light levels would have appeared at the time. It would be a tough fix. And you have more PS skill than I, so I'm betting you should be able to do it. But you may need to start from the beginning. By the way, the image is absolutely killer and deserves everything you can throw at it to make it right!

Marc,

I appreciate your input, and I'd trust almost no one else more than you on this. I will take your advice and make the plunge on some fairly decent ND grads...I just dont want to miss some opportunities while I'm learning to use them. I've not gone to NDGs yet because I'm always worried about images like this where the horizon is not a flat line. I might call you soon and ask you where you place your grad line on mountain shots like this, but I['m guessing at the base of the mountain.

 

I think I'm gonna work this again from the beginning, tomorrow and see what I come up with. I'm trying to work this one and get it right because Amy wants it hanging in her living room.

It has a lot to know with knowing which grad to use when, as I'm sure you've suspected. With a soft grad, you don't always need to be as precise, and thank God we've got digital now and you'll usually know if you screwed up badly. I like hard grads for most applications. Either would have worked fine here, because that snow holds a lot of light and a grad wouldn't have darkened the rest of the mountain to a point where it is unslavageable with a little mid-tone dodging (which takes just seconds). They sure are a huge time saver for most applications, but anyone these days would agree there are some instances where a blend would be a good choice also - just probably not here.

 

Get some oversized grads so you can hand-hold them, making the process easier, but get a holder too so you can use it if you wish. Despite the opinion of some, it's not hard to figure out where you're placing the grad when looking through the viewfinder. I cannot recall a single instance where it has been a problem for me - ever. You'll get it down soon. There are some more advanced techniques I won't discuss right here, but feel free to shoot me an email or give me a call sometime. Good luck.

It is brilliant how everyones photographic preferences differ because I havent used grads for a year and a half now unless the light is ridiculously harsh. I cant stand grad lines in images especially around areas of complex shapes as I am sure we are both aware. For me it just doesnt work as I feel the image is inhibited by darkened features that simply dont look that way; I took them out of my bag the other day and had a go at using them, I must admit the results on the 5D screen looked instantly appealing, but when I got home I found at 0.9, features like rocks and other horizon features were blackened and unnatural, at 0.6 this problem was alleviated but the sky was too bright. I tried them all as well; soft step and hard step, binned them all and blended the two in CS2 with much better results.

 

I would say this; yes it is easy to get far too digital and this is where the problems exist with blending images, you have to respect the light conditions and relative exposure but as long as you dont mess to much with the exposure sliders in your RAW software. I believe you can get the most natural results as long as the CS2 work is consistant and thought out. You are after all achieving the same result as a grad except you decide where this effect takes place, but it is easy to get wrong and get unnatural effects just like using grads. There have been plenty of times when I have had to rework images due to incorrect blending and Photo.net, NPN and Naturescapes are great ways of flaw spotting, but as I remember from shooting film there is nothing worse than getting negatives or RAW files ruined by incorrect use of ND grads, especially when trying to work fast, at least with combining two or more exposures you have the opportunity to keep the effect completely flexible to the end.

 

I learn more and more techniques for blending all the time, but undeniably the grads work for many people and keeping it simple in CS2. I hate HDR, I havent seen a good one yet.

Rick, Marc, David, and others--You guys have a very interesting and educational conversation going on, which is definitely appreciated by many (like myself) who are still on the steep part of the photography learning curve. Sunrise/Sunset probably accounts for 90% of my shots, so I'd say the majority of the time I'm dealing with "tough exposures." I'll give my $.02 here, which is based on extensive research and personal observations, but not the extensive experience that you guys possess. If I am mistaken about something or you guys disagree with me, please let me know! In short, I'm not writing this to necessarily educate you guys (although I hope you gain something from my comments, I realize you guys are all great photographers and processors)

 

As I see it, with these high dynamic range compositions there are 3 options for creating an ideal shot: layers in PS (which I know very, very little about and have never done), HDR/TTHDR/DRI (I'll elaborate in a moment), and ND Grad filters. I will say that after shooting without any of these, I now have several Cokin ND Grads, bought Photomatix, and am in the process of learning PS better. I think for me, the problem with these techniques is that I want to created an IMPROVED shot, without making it look totally unnatural. I think a shot with no shadows and no highlights may be eye-catching but is not ideal. My goal and what I think looks the best is to have the shot pretty much reflect what my eye sees at the time I'm shooting. I don't want a perfectly exposed foreground with a red sunrise, but I don't want it black either--I want it with some slight shadow but also with some detail...just like my eye sees it at the time of the shot. Here's what I've learned about the 3 options:

 

Layers: I admit I know very little about this. I hear some of the shots can come out with a range that is unnatural and the time it takes to create the shot is a downfall. However, in an ideal world, it seems like a good option. If you are a PS master, don't mind spending the time, and have a good vision in your head, I would imagine you can make a good shot. Although I would think it would be hard to hide the PS processing but again, I'm ignorant on this.

 

HDR/TTHDR/DRI: I have investigated this and recently bought Photomatix, although I'm still learning to use the program. On one hand I do agree with David, most HDR images I see are unique, but not appealing to me. While it is a neat "effect," the cartoon appearance is not what I want in my photographs. However, futher investigation led me to True Tone High Dynamic Range (TTHDR) and Dynamic Range Increase (DRI). The goal of these is to *increase* your dynamic range, without making it look like each portion is perfectly exposed in bright sunlight. Actually, if you look at flickr the defintion of TTHDR is "any shot where you cannot tell HDR was used." In my brief experience and through my research, I've learned the "cartoon" effect is created by using widely bracketed exposures. A DRI shot can be created with a single RAW file or closely bracketed exposures. I realize you lack total detail in the shadows and highlights with 1 RAW file but keep in mind the goal is to *increase* the detail and not have 100% absolute detail. I disagree (humbly) with David, based on my limited experience, that all HDR images are unpleasing. I think there are VERY FEW, but I do think it has a role. Many of my attempts so far have been absolutely hideous. However, there have been some minor improvements, even with my limited skill and knowledge. I will post an original file with this link and then the HDR version in a subsequent post. This is not a great picture but I think the HDR works decently here without being too much or looking unnatural. To be honest, it reflects what I saw when shooting the original file.

 

ND Grads: I have been using ND Grads with some success (had them for about a week now). Vincent Tylor (look at his portfolio if you haven't already) is the guy that recommended them to me and said that if I ever want to be successful, they are NOT optional! Vince says that EVERY sunrise/sunset shot you ever take needs an ND Grad. I think Marc's work echoes this line of thought--from what I saw most of his shots have an ND grad are his portfolio is out of this world! I do understand the issue with lines from the grads and where to place them. However, when I look at Vince and Marc's shots I can't find a single flaw. So, there must be a way to use these filters strategically so that they are inconspicuous. Furthermore, in my brief experience, I've found that I need to take multiple exposures with the filter in different positions in order to get decent results without filter lines. I find that as I move the filter lower, the lines disappear because then I am using only the dense top part and transitional part of the filter, but not the clear part at the bottom. I think filter position is the key, so every time I put the filter on (especially now while I'm new to them) I take 3 exposures with the filter high, middle, and low.

 

I think we can see from Vincent Tylor and Marc's work that ND Grads can definitely work. However, it only takes a quick glance at David (another of my photo.net favorites) to see you can get great results without them. So, I'm torn! For right now, I shoot it every different way and play later. I get my composition right, and using my remote snap 3 bracketed exposures in a few seconds. Then I throw on a fitler and shoot 3 more exposures with the filter in different positions. These 6 frames take a combined time of about 15 seconds and I have every option available to me--HDR, PS, or ND Grads. I suppose as I get better I'll be able to pinpoint what works when and cut down on my number of exposures but for now that is my approach. I'd love to hear comments on this from any of you, as each of your respective portfolios have earned my respect and I fully admit I'm the rookie here.

 

Here is the JPEG from the original RAW file--this was the first photo I ever used Photomatix on...the HDR will follow. Keep up the great exchanges--I appreciate the knowledge!

Here is the result of my HDR attempt using only the 1 RAW file (JPEG of it above) with Photomatix. Keep in mind this is my first attempt using the program and I'm ignorant on level adjustments so this may still be a little much but I think it demonstrates that not all HDR's have the cartoon look.

 

By the way, sorry for typing so much! :) Once again, let me reiterate that I am in no position to teach ANY of you ANYTHING! I just saw a good conversation between some of my favorite photo.net photographers and wanted to add what I've learned through research in hopes that some of you would confirm, contradict, or add to my knowledge on this topic. I hope to hear some responses and comments on my thoughts!

I'd like to chime in this conversation. I shoot with a 5D and at times use a 3 stop Singh Ray Grad ND soft, and most of the time I get decent results, but I think in some situations where you have a large foregroud element(s), blending might be the way to go. In Rick's photo here, I think a 3 stop hard, placed right at the base of the mountain, would have been perfect. However in another situation where there is a foreground element tall enough to extend from top to bottom, like a close by tree, you may ge some weird results because the Grad ND will darken the top of the tree and not the bottom. I do have to say that most HDR attempts I have seen really muddle the photo. It either looks radioactive or looks dingy. What I do is take 4-5 exposures and blend them myself with layer masks. I find that I have much more control and the results, I find are to be great. The photo I attached is a result of 5 exposures. The first and last shots were I think 8 stops apart, maybe more. Rick, I apolgize if we have made your critique request into a side discussion.

No worries...it's discussions like these that makes us all grow. I welcome these sorts of comments! Thanks for your time here too.

Thanks for "chiming in," Will. Glad to see you join in--now if Vince would stop by and comment we'd have ALL of my favorite photo.net photographers in one discussion! Rick--I echo Will's remarks in hoping that you don't mind how the conversation is going here--I think this knowledge, especially by so many photo.net greats (EXcluding myself, of course), will benefit us all.

 

After Will's example, please disregard mine! I now see how poor of an example it is! :) Will, I do like your technique and what you accomplished with your image. I think you did a superb job with the file in that the image is nicely exposed without looking unnatural. To me, that is the key. Getting detail without making things look fake. I think your shot does this and I'm amazed at the result given that you used 5 exposures. Out of curiosity, how many stops were between those 5 exposures?

 

From what I've seen and heard, it sounds like there may be a time and place for most techniques. Perhaps I'm not so crazy shooting such a variety of exposures so I can play with HDR, PS blending, or have a single file later that is pleasing!

I guess it is a little harsh to say that all HDR images dont work, I would say that the biggest problem I get from them is I can usually spot them a mile of for their lack or contrast, they just seem flat and processed. Your photograph is a classic example of when to HDR as blending a shot like this would be literally impossible I am sure. What I should have said is that I am yet to be very impressed by HDR, but I am sure this is because the end results wouldnt stop there if it was me. I would be opening up CS2 to finish the job, sort out all the color adjustments and contrasts using layers, why this never seems to be done by HDR users I dont know. I am always up for trying new techniques so I may well give it a go in the future and see what I can come up with.

 

If you look at Marcs portfolio and other grad users you can see that the technique works very well, you have to measure the difference in light between the brightest and darkest areas in your photograph to calculate the grad to use. You also have to make sure you do not use a hard step grad when the horizon (for example) includes complicated shapes like a jagged mountain edge, only a soft step positioned correctly will do. Using a 0.9ND grad when you should be using a 0.6ND grad will have disastrous results on the luminosity of the picture, blackening areas and giving a very obvious visible grad effect. The 5D Marc and I use can capture about 7 stops of light before blowing out the highlights or shadows. This range is such a huge break with Velvia only capable of about 5 stops maximum that many landscape photographers have bought this camera exclusively. Sunset pictures exhibit huge light ranges often as high as 8-12 stops difference between shadows and highlights, so even a 0.9 grad (three stop grad) will only give a maximum of 8 stops using Velvia. With a 5D this gives you around 10 stops so the improvement is one of the reasons why I was so desperate to get this camera. BUT get this wrong at the time of shooting and the results are doomed from the start. This is why taking a range of exposures seems to work best for me as I stated above, bad use of a grad may ruin the one brilliant moment of composition, lighting and movement and have you really kicking yourself. I used to make this mistake often; so many good shots ruined by bad grad alignment trying to work too fast to capture good light. This is why I use layers in CS2 and blend exposures. I get so locked onto composition alone when I work that all I need to do is take one shot for the sky, check the histogram for blown highlights and then I can concentrate on capturing water movement for example over the next ten shots making sure the shadows are never clipped, all seconds apart. You may be a purist and say that I shouldnt interfere? I dont think so, this is no 'cut and shut' I am not blending a sky from another composition or another day even. This method allows me to concentrate on various elements by separation of the image into sections, the foreground, mid-ground, sky etc depending on the composition.

 

I used to spend so much time checking exposure levels and changing grads that I had no room to think, I would make crucial errors wearing two different caps, swinging from technician to artist and this is where my problem and other peoples occur - it was too much for me and thanks to digital I am free, just the artist on location, the technician at home. Now I know that when I am sat at home with my PC I achieve exactly the same as a grad is doing but positioning the effect where I want it. By uniformly applying the blend I can also vary how much this effect takes place, almost like having all the grads at my fingertips. It is up to you whether you decide it is the best way for you or not but I know that I wouldnt go back. The only time I will use a grad is when the light is 10 stops or more because sometimes the sunset sunlight is so direct (no clouds at all) it produces horrible color artifacts like a thick blob of awful saturated yellow around it, a grad can stop this happening very well, still leaving me to capture my shots in the same way.

 

If you are unsure about technques there is a good Luminous Landscape tutorial to have a look at on Exposure Blending. Hope this helps and wish you the best of luck.

 

 

 

 

I would echo David's comments. I don't remember ever viewing an image that was HDR processed and not be able to recognize that it's an HDR image. Most of the HDR attempts, as Tyler put it, look "cartoonish", and the ones that look decent, still do not look natural. I think David and I share a common technique for blending exposure. While I do use photoshop to belnd the exposures, I do not rely on it's automation process. I manually blend them with layer masks. It takes longer to process, but I find the results are worth it. I think Marc is one of the very few photographers that can use a GND filter and not make it look like he used one. For the rest of us, we have to rely a bit more on PS.

David--Thank you very much for that in depth and thoughtful response. I (and I'm sure many others) learned a lot from your expertise. I didn't realize the whole dimension of how many stops a camera can capture but I see where that would definitely make a big difference. Out of curiosity, do you know how good (or bad) my Rebel XT is at this? Perhaps I need to upgrade...

 

I do not think you are violating any "laws" with what you are doing. To be honest, you are one of my favorite photographers on this site because not only are your images wonderfully composed, but they are also very, very realistic. I support doing whatever necessary to regenerate what the photographers eye saw--whether that be through HDR, blending, layers, or whatever. It is my understanding that digital cameras are not as good as our eyes so if you want to see in print what you saw in real life these techniques are NOT optional. The only thing I am not a fan of is taking a fiery red sunset from Hawaii and pasting it into a shot taken at noon in Europe. I'm not saying this is "wrong" or "sinful," but I started in photography because I am amazed at the natural beauty of the world God created and I wanted to be able to look back at my pictures and remember the unbelievable scenes I've witnessed. I used to be against extensive post-processing because I felt it was done in order to create computer generated, fairy-tale images but now that I understand cameras and photography better, I realize if you want to show reality, it's really not optional. I feel the lack of processing is actually a big shortcoming in my pictures, which is why I'm currently working to learn more about PS, HDR, and post-processing in general. Thank you for giving further explanation and helping me understand things better--your wisdom is greatly appreciated. You mentioned at tutorial--can you post a link or give me some more info on where I can find it?

 

Thanks again...I'm not sure if you guys learned anything but for me this has been a very thoughtful, wisdom-filled, and enlightening conversation--thanks for all the kind explanations!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Well I just had a look through some different web pages but the Luminous Landscape method is the one I began blending from when I first bought a digital camera, a Canon G3 point and shoot about two years ago (got stolen in Bali)

Firstly ignore all the ways of lining up slides with a black border and read the rest. Having a tripod and digital files you wont have to line up anything, just paste one on top of the other an follow all the instructions.

Regarding the Rebel XT I couldnt say (brief search revealed nothing) but I am sure it will about 6 stops of more. Ask in the Canon forum, it would be interesting to know. I forgot to say, make sure you buy the 0.9 and 0.6 grads in both soft step and hard step, especially for your favourite lighthouse shots but I am sure grads will only mess thinks up here. Actually this makes a perfect HDR test for you doesnt it. Anyway, I would recommend the Hitech filter range. Heres a UK link so you can see what you are looking at, but I am sure you can find a US link.

http://www.formatt.co.uk/hitech/85_page1.asp

With a 1.6x crop camera you can use the Hitech 85 system (100 system is far larger and more expensive but necessary for 17mm wide angles on full frame cameras like the 5D to stop vignetting or seeing the filter holder in the photgraph). They are cheap and good quality plastic without a colour cast. You can then get a Cokin P filter holder and rings (also very cheap) and this will do the job wonderfully. Cokin grads have a grey cast to them so I was told, so best avoided as the hitech ones are $20 each I guess (12 pounds here in England, why does photo.net never show the pounds sign properly, it always comes up as a ? mark!!!!)

Good luck with it all and thanks to Rick for hijacking his picture!