I've been playing with BW for a bit now and have a slight issue with regard to whitewater, whether ocean or river. Holding tonality in the water while allowing texture in surrounding rocks to come through is proving daunting. If i selectively mask the water then it starts to look fake compared to the rocks around it. There seems to be a visual cue that relates the water texture to the surrounding texture that is easy to destroy. Any hints would be deeply appreciated
I think those work well, and I don't see anything that looks artificial. The tones and level of contrast in the water look consistent with the overall scene to me. To have more texture to work with, you might try doing exposure bracketing, if the situation otherwise allows for it. The shorter exposure will have more texture (and be darker), and you can layer it and blend it selectively to boost the contrast in certain areas. You can also use adjustments (levels, curves, etc.) on that specific layer to lighten it and enhance the contrast to blend better with the main image.
Just a thought but I’m thinking that B&W only works on waterfalls when the waterfall is the dominate subject in the frame. When you have strong patterns and textures, the waterfall seems lose its prominence in the frame in the B&W format. I think this though is clearly demonstrated in your two pics.
Do a Google Image search on “black and white waterfalls pictures” and I think you will clearly see this demonstrated. Your eye will clearly gravitate towards photos that have the waterfall that occupy 80% of the frame where the subject is really the water and not the surrounding scene.
Interesting idea there. It might be why waterfall pics get such a bad rap. If the waterfall has to dominate then it's hard to create interesting comps around it. I was trying to contrast the falls against what i thought were some really interesting and gritty textures in the rocks. I also find waterfalls without context, well pretty boring. The geology surrounding them tends to interest me as much as the falls themselves. A bit of subjective interest that might be limiting to the general population. Thre are actually three layer masks on two different exposures in both of these images, so I've got all the dynamic range I need. It's just getting it all to work together I'm struggling with.
I'm not an expert just sharing a thought that may or may not be correct. I have tried making some of my waterfall pics into B&W and have never really been satisfied with them in that format.... except for one. I think we use color in our own mind to help differentiate and when you have complex subjects such as the detail in the rocks and trees (your pix), the waterfalls somehow gets lost.
I like it Charlie. I probably wouldn't have pushed the overall contrast as much, but the rock definitely gives a better counterpoint to the softer water. Did you achieve the local contrast via a high radius/ low percentage unsharp mask, a high pass overlay, or something else? It's also an issue of scale as well, At print sizes pushing overall contrast is going to cost fine detail. I appreciate all the input! If there's anyone elso who'd like to have a go at it, feel free!
Feb 12, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Charlie Shugart Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
river rover wrote:
I like it Charlie. I probably wouldn't have pushed the overall contrast as much, but the rock definitely gives a better counterpoint to the softer water. Did you achieve the local contrast via a high radius/ low percentage unsharp mask, a high pass overlay, or something else?
Forgive me, but when you ask about high radius/low percentage unsharp mask, or high pass overlay, I giggle.
Truth is, I have NO idea what those things are. When I said I use basic procedures, I mean REALLY basic.
I copied your second color image.
1. Clicked desaturation, then used:
2. 25% auto color
3. -14 brightness/ +14 contrast
4. 50% sharpening
5. 50% edge sharpening
That was all I did.
Before starting, though, I decided that everything I did needed to emphasize the whiteness of the waterfall without losing very much detail in it.
-14 brightness/+14 contrast did that while removing some of the murkiness of the surrounding rock and trees.
So did 25% auto color- to a lesser extent.
By sharpening the overall image, the difference between the unmoving rock and the moving water was more apparent.
Because I used sliders on all my steps, the combinations are virtually infinite. Hundreds of repetitions have helped me predict what will best suit my personal tastes- so after awhile I was able to do most processing within five or six minutes.
As stated- very basic stuff- but it works for me.
Charlie
