Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Zion reflection
  
 
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Zion reflection


This is a two image hand blend. I knew when I shot it that I would need a blend to tame the DR. I am including SOOC of both images for play.

All comments welcome on this problem.




2 image blend

  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens    53mm    f/8.0    1/80s    100 ISO    -0.3 EV  







light SOOC







dark SOOC




Nov 24, 2012 at 06:48 PM
gneto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Zion reflection


I absolutely love the reflections you got on the water.

I think you have a blue cast on that dark/shadowed patch of land, but it could be my monitor so wait for someone else to also point this before assuming this might be the case.



Nov 24, 2012 at 07:43 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Zion reflection


Thanks, the reflection is why I stopped for this.

On Safari, it looks magenta, in Chrome sort of blue, I don't trust Chrome because it is not color aware.

Many streams have purple sand because it's ground up garnet. But I suspect that is not the case here, the Zion sand tends to be red from the predominent red rock. I bet Kent knows what red sand in shade will look like.



Nov 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM
sadja
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Zion reflection


On my IE7 the forground sands look magenta.

Hate to say it, but this is a case where the beautifui experience of being there translated into a boring image.



Nov 24, 2012 at 08:57 PM
kodakeos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Zion reflection


Water in foreground is to 'faraway' where I mean the camera looks like it was shot about 6' high. No leading lines from foreground to background and makes it seem colorful but Blaise


Nov 24, 2012 at 09:08 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Zion reflection


The distant bank seems to slash across the image. I tried to minimize the bank with a vertical crop and I also darkened the bank.







Nov 25, 2012 at 12:48 AM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Zion reflection


Hi Jim, that's a nice redo. Dark was probably easy.


Nov 25, 2012 at 01:05 AM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Zion reflection


kodakeos wrote:
Water in foreground is to 'faraway' where I mean the camera looks like it was shot about 6' high. No leading lines from foreground to background and makes it seem colorful but Blaise



Probably more like 5 feet from where I stood, but of course that was on a bank. I don't think waters edge was an option.



Nov 25, 2012 at 01:07 AM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Zion reflection


sadja wrote:
On my IE7 the forground sands look magenta.

Hate to say it, but this is a case where the beautifui experience of being there translated into a boring image.



Which is why I posted it here, to find out why or what could have been done to make it better. So your conclusion is one I had considered even before I took it.



Nov 25, 2012 at 01:08 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Zion reflection


Took a stab (laptop running sluggish, so it's a little crude) ...

Not sure @ colors for "red sand", so I kinda "split the diff". Took some levels adjustment @ the blue channel in channels (masked in layers for sand and grasses).







Nov 26, 2012 at 04:47 AM
Oregon Gal
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Zion reflection


Possibly a tighter crop although you lose what first attracted you to stop and take the picture, the reflection.







Nov 26, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Mister Bean
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Zion reflection


I'm not sure you need both exposures. I used the darker one only, and there was no clipping at either end.

I ended up with something fairly similar to your original. I might have a little more saturation in the sand. There's more orange in the water. I knocked down the exposure on the rocks in the upper left. And it seems to have a bit less clarity.

The shadowed area does have a bit of a blue/purple cast to it. But shadows naturally do. So I don't see that as problematic. I emphasized this just a little bit so that it would stand up better to the colors in the rest of the photo.







Here's a slightly different square crop.







Or you can go more abstract with it.







There are some nice elements here, but, ultimately, I didn't really come up with anything that I found particularly compelling.



Nov 26, 2012 at 07:15 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Zion reflection


+1 @ working from only the single exposure.

Ben, I've noticed that when you take multiple exposures, you tend to have them closer together than I typically do. My perspective is rooted in that if you (incident) meter the sunlit side of a subject (say a person) and the back side (shadow) of the same ... you'll see the diff @ amount of light being contributed from the direct sun vs. the overhead sky.

Front = Warm direct/specular sun + Cool indirect/diffuse overhead sky
Back = Cool overhead sky (warm direct sun being blocked by subject)

There are two aspects to recognize regarding this. One is exposure, the other is color of the light.
Remembering that warm (Yellow @ R+G)) + cool (Blue) = White/Neutral (R+G+B), is also corollary to R+G=Y or White - Blue = Yellow (R+G), or White - Yellow (R+G) = Blue. Take away the warm (direct sun) from the neutral (i.e. WB) and you are simple left with cool (overhead sky) to reflect off those "shadow lit" subject areas.

First, the exposure of the back of the subject tells us how much light is coming from the overhead sky (absent of the direct light) only. This value is going to be the same amount that is contributed to the front of the subject as well. The difference in the values then becomes the contribution of the direct sun.

My observations have been that in typical "Sunny 16" lighting, the difference is around 2 1/2 stops. As a result of that, I find little value in bracketing for DR by shooting anything less than a two stop diff, typically shooting a 3 stop diff (for the shadows) @ easier math than 2 1/2.

Second, when we realize that the color of the lighting on the shadow side is different from the color of the lighting from the front, we have a choice to make @ retain the mixed color lighting, or correct for it. The choice is totally ours to make ... as in the case of the white / blue / yellow fence.

But, imo ... if we are going to go to the effort of "correcting" the exposure of our shadows, so our viewer can better see the subject matter contained in the shadows, then it only makes sense to me that we would want to likewise correct for the color so our viewer can better see the subject matter as well.

As always, S&P to taste ... and creative subjectivity of letting the blue show "as recorded" is certainly a matter of choice. But if the purpose of the image is indicated by the shadow exposure lifting to reveal more information to the viewer, then why would we allow the color information to remain askew?

If the purpose of the image is to showcase the light (which we often do) characteristics and how it records differently than we see (refer to Antelope Canyon), then why do we feel compelled to leave the colors "as recorded" but aspire to correct for the shadow exposures rather than also leave them "as recorded".

For me, correcting exposure without correcting color seems like only doing 1/2 the job of correcting the image.

As always, S&P to taste ... so if a person likes blue snow in their images, so be it.

"Corrected" or "Artisticly Rendered" ... it is still our choice at what we present to our viewers ... "What's the point?" or "What is the message that I want to convey to my viewer?" has as much impact on my "corrected" vs. "rendered" vs. "as recorded" vs. "as seen" decisions ... as it does on focus, scale, composition, etc.

I just find it a bit incongruous to shoot HDR, lift shadow exposure, but not correct shadow color. But, that's me.

Ben ... yes, I understand you aspire to better show the red sand to your viewer, thus inquiring @ possibilities. I hope this doesn't come across as anything other than my sharing my philosophy regarding "blue snow". I just think that while it is true when people say that the blue cast naturally occurs in the shadows, that doesn't do much to help with the objective of showing your viewer what it is that you want them to see. I was actually a bit surprised to see the grasses reveal themselves as much as they did on this one.

I just wanted to toss out that you might consider bracketing a bit wider than you have been. As I embarked on the dialogue @ variance of exposure between front and shadow, it just seemed to naturally warrant the color variance also for those who might have not previously considered it (as I know your already have).

HTH

The red sand is a tricky one. Lacking a good neutral reference, I first tried to bring G & B into nearly equal value allowing R to be dominant. That didn't seem to render the "red sand" red enough, so I went into the blue channel for additional blue mitigation ... and just kinda eyeballed it from there. I probably need to revisit it, predicated on what I learned of it in "Round 1" ... but hopefully it at least shows some potential for the purple sand to become red.

BTW ... Barbara's sand color is in the right direction as well. Maybe she'll share her approach to the sand.

The really tricky part of this one is going to get the sand, reflections and background to harmonize (even after figuring out the corrections) into plausible realism with tonal & saturation adjustments etc. As a learning exercise / skill builder ... this one is quite the challenge. It might be one to visit & revisit as a litmus test to your PP skills as you learn new techniques.

As always, S&P to taste.




Nov 26, 2012 at 01:46 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Zion reflection


Mister Bean wrote:
I'm not sure you need both exposures. I used the darker one only, and there was no clipping at either end.

I ended up with something fairly similar to your original. I might have a little more saturation in the sand. There's more orange in the water. I knocked down the exposure on the rocks in the upper left. And it seems to have a bit less clarity.

The shadowed area does have a bit of a blue/purple cast to it. But shadows naturally do. So I don't see that as problematic. I emphasized this just a little bit
...Show more

Good job of pulling the shadows out of the darker image. You are correct about this not ending up compelling. I saw the reflection but I am the sort of guy who is uncomfortable with what I call partials I needed context or substance around the water and it did not work.



Nov 26, 2012 at 03:25 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Zion reflection


RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ working from only the single exposure.

Ben, I've noticed that when you take multiple exposures, you tend to have them closer together than I typically do. My perspective is rooted in that if you (incident) meter the sunlit side of a subject (say a person) and the back side (shadow) of the same ... you'll see the diff @ amount of light being contributed from the direct sun vs. the overhead sky.

Front = Warm direct/specular sun + Cool indirect/diffuse overhead sky
Back = Cool overhead sky (warm direct sun being blocked by subject)

There are two aspects to recognize regarding this.
...Show more

I typically bracket +/-1/3 stop even when I am not expecting to blend, I got into this habit in film days and its basically a metering error safeguard. I almost always prefer the darkest image that does not have blocked shadows. For difficult light, I will shoot as much as 2 stops apart. More than that is probably not going to work anyway. But I often shot sets of brackets. I dislike blends anyway because they are usually messed up by subject motion. Sometimes I even see shadow motion. That is the sun has moved enough to move the shadow line.

But if I need to pull up shadows, starting with a brighter exposure helps me eliminate shadow noise. If it has no motion, I am good with it.

Also, you may be more skilled at pulling up shadows. Certainly with color management. I am reading and incorporating your color ideas into my workflow when I can see what you mean.

My lack of confidence in my own color judgement means I rely heavily on the cameras auto WB or other automated ways to get there.









Nov 26, 2012 at 03:35 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Zion reflection


Gotcha @ metering bracketing vs. DR bracketing.
I used to shot my chromes @ -1/3 EC and bracket 2/3 if I had a challenging scene that I thought might fool my meter a bit (sans spot metering).

I thought your narrow bracketing was targeted @ DR ... my bad. .



Nov 26, 2012 at 03:45 PM
ben egbert
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Zion reflection


Hey, your explanation pointed out something I never considered, that is color shift with brackets.

One possibility might be to fix the color before blending. After all one will be used for mostly shadows and the other for the rest.

I have spent the lest week working on one Zion image with a tough DR and color issue after blending or pulling up shadows. Using your hue saturation trick I was able to identify the offending colors and make corrections but often end up with a muddy looking image.

There is a lot to learn here.



Nov 26, 2012 at 04:09 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password