Stumbled upon this entirely by accident while doing some off trail navigation to another destination. This snowfield straddled a creek. Upon getting near it, found that it was large enough that if the ground were flat, you could drive a compact car through it. Hiked through it while stopping for pictures all the way. Felt like a real once in a lifetime opportunity, so I wanted to make the most of it.
Near the entrance and exit I was able to do my usual of taking a raw shot and having enough range to pull shadows/highlights, but deeper in, I knew that wouldn't cut it and so took a bunch at different exposure levels. At that point I knew I'd have to HDR merge them, and though I hadn't done that for years, I could at least gather the raw materials for it.
I tried to process these to look how they looked to my eyes in person, rather than the default overcooked HDR settings.
The last time I did HDR mergers was years ago, before I learned how to edit raw files, when I was trying to merge jpgs. So this was somewhat learning from scratch. My normal editor is DxO Photolab, which of course doesn't have an HDR merge function. My first attempt was processing the exposure-bracketed shots (manually exposure bracketed, since I took these all in hi-res mode) in DxO, exporting to DNG, then merging in Lightroom. Those turned out... okay... but still didn't look quite right, and didn't have as much color range when adjusting things. I checked with some better photographers I know, and they recommended doing the merge in Lightroom straight from the raw files. That had better results in terms of adjustability, but didn't have the DxO touch that I'm used to. After a lot of trial and error, I used the Lightroom merges, did basic exposure, highlight and shadow adjustment in Lightroom, then exported it as a TIF file and did the final editing in DxO with my standard hi-res preset as the base.
So there's the shots and the admittedly roughshod process I used. Pointers would be welcome!
Very nice and you did a great job of processing what I'm sure were difficult conditions due to the high dynamic range encountered between the cave and the light. I like #1 because the rocks are so prominent clear, and #9 is also a dandy.
Very cool find! With that large of a dynamic range, you have to combine exposures and you did a good job. I'm glad it didn't collapse on you (as they are won't to do)!
Like Monika said, I'm glad nothing fell down on you - no evidence on the floor of such collapses so perhaps it doesn't happen in CO as often as it does up here in WA. There are a number of such tunnels at the end of a short easy trail in the mountains near my house. Quite a few people have been killed there, and the warning signs are easy to see - big piles of ice litter the floor.
Jim Dockery wrote:
Nicely done, both compositions and processing.
Like Monika said, I'm glad nothing fell down on you - no evidence on the floor of such collapses so perhaps it doesn't happen in CO as often as it does up here in WA. There are a number of such tunnels at the end of a short easy trail in the mountains near my house. Quite a few people have been killed there, and the warning signs are easy to see - big piles of ice litter the floor.
Thanks for this tip! This was my first time in something like this, so admittedly I had no thought of dangers and went right in with my camera. Not common here in Colorado. I didn't see any big piles of ice inside, even under the "skylight" sections. Will keep that in mind for the future though, definitely going to go back and check out this spot in future years to see if it develops similarly.
JohnKS wrote:
Nicely done indeed. Any chance you have any images of the tunnel from the top side that you could post? I'd be interested in seeing those images.
Unfortunately not, from a distance it just looked like a snowfield on a rock slope with a hole in the bottom where the creek came out. It was when we got up close/inside that we had a Neo-esque "whoa" moment and busted out the camera.
