genefixer wrote:
Mark

Masterfully processed!! You are a magician!!

Mike

Thanks very much Mike. I call myself a digital imaging specialist.

Mark, really like your interpretation - especially the sky. "Blend-if" is indeed a very useful tool.

alatoo60 wrote:
Mark, really like your interpretation - especially the sky. "Blend-if" is indeed a very useful tool.

Thank you!

I consider them the "Holy Grail" of blending as they have replaced almost every other method I have used. Very simple but outrageously powerful.

Fantastic work here Mark! Interesting take with BlendIf. Will have to give that a try in the future.

-Omar

Great image and cant argue with the results.

But every time I have tried the blend if option I end up with nasty posterisation on the border areas. Will give it another go with an appropriate image.

RobDickinson wrote:
Great image and cant argue with the results.

But every time I have tried the blend if option I end up with nasty posterisation on the border areas. Will give it another go with an appropriate image.

Maybe consider my vid. It is all in the way you work with it.

Well the image is a testimony to the number of views Mark Every once in a while as I drool over some of the landscape on this planet that I have never seen I come to an image, a point of 'view' that just sets me down to let out a deep breath and take it all in................how do you ever walk away from a view like this! Simply amazing on my screen yet I can't begin to imagine what it felt like to be there, great conveyance of your 'point of view' and thanks

Karl

Hi,

I love the photo, great shot.

Here's the rookie question I haven't seen asked in all this thread.
It might be obvious to the other experts here, but why overexpose that way?
Up until today I was under the impression that the idea is to watch out for blinkies and avoid overexposing the shots, that bringing back dark areas is easier than the overexposed ones.

Maybe it is because as long as the highlights do not clip it's the same as underexposing? And overexposing is adapted to the workflow you explain here?

Thanks

Hugues

Mark,
I follow you on this site, love your work, been showing this beautiful shot to my friends, love the way you process your photo's would love to learn how to do it.

Great image and a very impressive transformation.

Karl Witt wrote:
Well the image is a testimony to the number of views Mark Every once in a while as I drool over some of the landscape on this planet that I have never seen I come to an image, a point of 'view' that just sets me down to let out a deep breath and take it all in................how do you ever walk away from a view like this! Simply amazing on my screen yet I can't begin to imagine what it felt like to be there, great conveyance of your 'point of view' and thanks

Karl


Thanks Karl. If I had been here by myself, or with a shooting partner, we would have stayed a lot longer and just camped out on the spot! I was with a private workshop client and so we had an agenda to get done in a short time. but having said that, going to Lower Antelope and the South Rim of the Grand Canyon the next day wasn't bad.

Dreampusher wrote:
Hi,

I love the photo, great shot.

Here's the rookie question I haven't seen asked in all this thread.
It might be obvious to the other experts here, but why overexpose that way?
Up until today I was under the impression that the idea is to watch out for blinkies and avoid overexposing the shots, that bringing back dark areas is easier than the overexposed ones.

Maybe it is because as long as the highlights do not clip it's the same as underexposing? And overexposing is adapted to the workflow you explain here?

Thanks

Hugues


This shot was not overexposed (only if I was a JPEG shooter would it be). There were no blinkies. Blinkies occur mainly when there is data unretrievable. So it was shot to the right of the histogram. Once I added contrast with my own raw adjustments, then yes there was some areas stating to clip. Thus the technique to double process the raw file and use "Blend If. About 1/2 of all the potential data or detail in a print is found in the brightest stop of light in raw capture (before conversion) and is pushed down into the shadows and mid tones when conversion takes place. So exposing brighter than you think allows for all around better information in most situations. Hope it helps.

Kenneth Kosler wrote:
Mark,
I follow you on this site, love your work, been showing this beautiful shot to my friends, love the way you process your photo's would love to learn how to do it.


Thanks very much Kenneth. I teach everything I do, so check out my website and maybe PM or email me. I'd love to help.