Over the 4th of July, my wife and I stayed in Jackson Hole and I had a few opportunities to run up to the Tetons in the morning to get that great first light on the peaks. When I was very young, I saw a picture of Moulton Barn and thought it was the coolest thing in the world. Ever since then, I've been wanting to shoot the Mormon Row barns.
Early on the 4th, I ran up to Antelope Flats road and shot the north barn. The light show I received did not disappoint.
On the 5th of July, my wife and I drove around the entire park with our sights set on the Snake River Overlook to finish out our day. A terrible storm started to blow in right as we were rounding the corner of the overlook. Things got pretty rough (lots of rain and lightning) but I was able to capture a few shots that I thought was able to convey the dramatic scene before us.
I absolutely love the Tetons. I always have. I'll be back one day to scout out unique locations as the possibilities in the park are endless.
Both are really nice, Justin. Lots of good light and drama in them. You really nailed the shot of the barn especially. Some of the highlights in the clouds look pretty hot, but otherwise, it's beautifully processed. Are you sure need that extra 20 percent at the left of #2? The comp seems a bit right-heavy.
Phrasikleia wrote:
Both are really nice, Justin. Lots of good light and drama in them. You really nailed the shot of the barn especially. Some of the highlights in the clouds look pretty hot, but otherwise, it's beautifully processed. Are you sure need that extra 20 percent at the left of #2? The comp seems a bit right-heavy.
I was worried about the highlights in both shots after viewing them at work. My home monitor is calibrated and it matches my prints perfectly and the clouds look great. However, on my work monitor they both seem a bit too contrasty.
I struggled with the composition of #2 for quite some time. Ultimately, I went with the extra bit on the left because I liked the light hitting the distant mountains and the front lit trees in the foreground, however, I need to let the shot digest for a bit before I make my final decision.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the highlights. They look fine on my editing monitor and it matches my prints perfectly, which is what is important to me.
JustinPoe wrote:
I was worried about the highlights in both shots after viewing them at work. My home monitor is calibrated and it matches my prints perfectly and the clouds look great. However, on my work monitor they both seem a bit too contrasty.
I struggled with the composition of #2 for quite some time. Ultimately, I went with the extra bit on the left because I liked the light hitting the distant mountains and the front lit trees in the foreground, however, I need to let the shot digest for a bit before I make my final decision.
Nice to hear the prints look great. I'll admit that I'm due for recalibration on my main system, but I see the hot spots on my iPad as well, for what that is worth (probably about what you paid for that information! ).
I'm actually looking in vain for the "light hitting the distant mountains and the front lit trees." I'm thinking maybe it's something that comes out better when viewed large. Internet sizes can take a lot away from a photo.
traveler wrote:
Indeed I loved the light, especially on the first one. Would be even better to eliminate a bit of the haze. I now it's hard.
On the first one? The haze is pretty minimal and provides some nice separation. I really don't see a need for those mountains to come any further forward.
You really worked the light so well in both of these, I love those colors in #1, you really came away with a cool barn shot.
For what it's worth, neither shot feels like it has any blown out area's to me. And so I like how you worked the light really well in #2. The one thing I would do in #2 is to crop a bit off the left to lose that brighter area lower down in the clouds towards the left. You have some sweet rays of light angling that way, and I think while that area is not as bright as the area around the sun, it's still grabbing some attention away from the sun. So I would crop enough to lose that area.
JimFox wrote:
For what it's worth, neither shot feels like it has any blown out area's to me.
Feeling a certain anxiety about my monitor calibration (I think we all know that feeling), I decided to indulge my curiosity on this one. Here are the areas of the red channel that are clipping in the barn image:
Apparently not visible in the prints, which is great, but I am picking up on it in this web version, and those areas in the clouds draw my eye pretty strongly away from the main attractions. Nobody else seems to notice it, though, so maybe I'm just overly sensitive to it. At any rate, it might be something to consider fixing for your online sharing/portfolio...or not! I'll be quiet now...
Fantastic light in both of them and great job with the processing. However, I must question the choice of composition in #1. The tree on the right edge looks incomplete, which is distracting (to me anyway). I don't know if there is any possibility to give it some breathing room so the branches wouldn't be pressed agains the right edge.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Fantastic light in both of them and great job with the processing. However, I must question the choice of composition in #1. The tree on the right edge looks incomplete, which is distracting (to me anyway). I don't know if there is any possibility to give it some breathing room so the branches wouldn't be pressed agains the right edge.
I was having the same thought about the breathing room at the tree on the right. Not only for the branches to not be pressed against the right edge but to have balance out with the fantastic barn.
I love the color, light, and wonderful sky. Lovely shots, both of them. #1 is my favorite though.
JimFox wrote:
For what it's worth, neither shot feels like it has any blown out area's to me. And so I like how you worked the light really well in #2. The one thing I would do in #2 is to crop a bit off the left to lose that brighter area lower down in the clouds towards the left. You have some sweet rays of light angling that way, and I think while that area is not as bright as the area around the sun, it's still grabbing some attention away from the sun. So I would crop enough to lose that area.
It seems the general consensus is that I crop off that left area, which is what I was started to lean towards. I'll take another look at it.
Phrasikleia wrote:
Feeling a certain anxiety about my monitor calibration (I think we all know that feeling), I decided to indulge my curiosity on this one. Here are the areas of the red channel that are clipping in the barn image:
Wow....that looks terrible. I'm not seeing any clipping close to that... I assumed you saved the file directly from the forum and pulled it up in PS. Maybe I'm just paranoid (and it might not make a lot of sense), but I don't trust any file other than my original RAW file to pull data from.
This does bring up an interesting point though, that has bothered me for a while. How do you deal with a web based portfolio designed to be viewed all over the world on different monitors that could have completely different brightness/contrast, hue/saturation etc. values?
i.e. At work I have a dual monitor setup with identical monitors at identical "settings" (not calibrated) and I can drag an IE box from one screen to the other and my photo looks completely different on both monitors. On my right screen, the clouds terrible.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Fantastic light in both of them and great job with the processing. However, I must question the choice of composition in #1. The tree on the right edge looks incomplete, which is distracting (to me anyway). I don't know if there is any possibility to give it some breathing room so the branches wouldn't be pressed agains the right edge.
I've seen this barn shot a million times and not once with the tree on the right, so I wanted to include it, however, I thought a lot about how tightly it should be in the frame. If I gave it too much room to breathe on the right, it took away from the barn, so that's why I landed on the comp I did. I'll take a serious look at your suggestion and see if it helps or hinders the overall shot.
JustinPoe wrote:
Wow....that looks terrible. I'm not seeing any clipping close to that... I assumed you saved the file directly from the forum and pulled it up in PS. Maybe I'm just paranoid (and it might not make a lot of sense), but I don't trust any file other than my original RAW file to pull data from.
This does bring up an interesting point though, that has bothered me for a while. How do you deal with a web based portfolio designed to be viewed all over the world on different monitors that could have completely different brightness/contrast, hue/saturation etc. values?
i.e. At work I have a dual monitor setup with identical monitors at identical "settings" (not calibrated) and I can drag an IE box from one screen to the other and my photo looks completely different on both monitors. On my right screen, the clouds terrible....Show more →
I'm not sure what you mean about only trusting the RAW file. For prints, you have to trust your edited PSD (or TIFF or whatever). For the web, you have to trust your final JPEG. Yeah, I just downloaded your file from the forum and pulled it up in PS. You should open your JPEG in PS and see if the clipping looks any different. Anyway, regarding how to process for web: that is the million dollar question! My approach is to favor the best-case scenario: color-aware browsers used with calibrated monitors. I save out with an sRGB profile to help keep color shifting on the web to a minimum. I always cringe when I see my photos on an uncalibrated screen, but so it goes... :::sigh:::
).
