Shuksan afternoon

squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
edited August 29, 2009 in Landscapes
went up to Mt. Shuksan today to see what i could get... a bit too early in the season for fall color, but not much left of summer flowers, either... :( still, i managed a couple of good shots. the first one is a 5-shot vertical stitch with my 5D... the final image is 6275x4181, so will make nice large prints! ;) the second is a "pseudo-HDR" processed in Photomatix to bring out some detail in the trees.

late afternoon...

shuksansummersm.jpg

alpenglow

IMG_9419smcopy2_copy__tonemapped_fi.jpg
~ Rocky
"Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
Three Dog Night

www.northwestnaturalimagery.com

Comments

  • NyteNyte Registered Users Posts: 164 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    I really like the colours, clarity, depth and light of the first shot, but I'm not keen on the second version and I'm of the opinion it lacks all the things I find attractive in the first one. You've recovered detail in the very dark trees, but there are other ways of doing that which would have left everything else intact.

    No offence intended, but my personal view is that 'pseudo' HDR is a waste of time. It can create a similar 'painted look' and if that's all that's required then I suppose that's fair enough, but what it can't do is increase the dynamic range beyond that the camera captured in the single frame being worked with.
  • EiaEia Registered Users Posts: 3,627 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    Beautiful! I prefer the first. iloveyou.gif
    ~AnnaMaria~ My little life in God's big universe
  • rontront Registered Users Posts: 1,473 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    I also prefer the first one Rocky. It is just an awesome picture!! The reflection is magnificent!!

    Ron
    "The question is not what you look at, but what you see". Henry David Thoreau

    http://ront.smugmug.com/
    Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    "You've recovered detail in the very dark trees, but there are other ways of doing that which would have left everything else intact"

    everything else being what?
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    The 2nd one really ROX!!!!bowdown.gifbowbowdown.gifbowbowdown.gifthumbthumb.gifthumbthumb.gifthumb
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • NyteNyte Registered Users Posts: 164 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    squirl033 wrote:
    "You've recovered detail in the very dark trees, but there are other ways of doing that which would have left everything else intact"

    everything else being what?

    Everything else being the rest of the photograph.
  • schmooschmoo Registered Users Posts: 8,468 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    Hi Rocky! I think the first image is just great as it is. I see your point about wanting to bring out more details in the trees, but even at first glance I didn't think they were all that dark. Would it be possible to just layer the two photos with masks so you have mostly the first image and just a bit of your HDR'd trees to give it a little punch?
    SmugMug Editor / News Flash!
    Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    Nyte wrote:
    Everything else being the rest of the photograph.

    seems to me everything else IS "intact"... obviously, the colors and light are different, since they're not the same photo at all, but were taken an hour or so apart. the first does have more depth, but that's because the lighting in the foreground wasn't uniform, and created more layers, where the foreground in the second is uniformly dark. If you've ever shot alpine scenery at sunset, you'd know what i mean.

    it's all a matter of taste, i suppose.
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    schmoo wrote:
    Hi Rocky! I think the first image is just great as it is. I see your point about wanting to bring out more details in the trees, but even at first glance I didn't think they were all that dark. Would it be possible to just layer the two photos with masks so you have mostly the first image and just a bit of your HDR'd trees to give it a little punch?

    actually, Schmoo, these are two completely different images, so overlaying on on the other wouldn't work. i can certalnly reprocess the second one to darken the trees back up a bit, but i want to preserve some detail... in the original, that whole treeline is almost black.
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • dseidmandseidman Registered Users Posts: 824 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    I prefer the first shot, as the second one has too much of that flat HDR look to it with an unnaturally dark sky. I think the second shot has a lot of potential and the colors are certainly nice but it might require a different processing method.
    Danny Seidman
    http://www.danseidmanphoto.com/
  • NyteNyte Registered Users Posts: 164 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    squirl033 wrote:
    seems to me everything else IS "intact"... obviously, the colors and light are different, since they're not the same photo at all, but were taken an hour or so apart. the first does have more depth, but that's because the lighting in the foreground wasn't uniform, and created more layers, where the foreground in the second is uniformly dark. If you've ever shot alpine scenery at sunset, you'd know what i mean.

    it's all a matter of taste, i suppose.

    I don't think dark foregrounds at sunset are exclusive to alpine scenery and whilst I did assume the two images were differently processed versions of the same photographs my original comments still apply; I don't think 'pseudo' HDR was your best option. Aside from what's already been mentioned, you also have fringing/halos where land meets sky which is particularly noticeable around the trees to the left.

    As I stated previously, I intend no offence, but when I offer my opinion it's an honest one. Processing can be rectified and it's that I'm not keen on where your second image is concerned. I like the first one very much.
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    went back and had another go at the second one, using a different process this time. a little darker in the foreground, but there's less of the flat, monotone shade of green, and the sky came out more uniform. i lost some of the color of the alpenglow, but it's still there, just not as intense... better, or do i still need to do some tweaking?

    IMG_9419smrdx_filtered.jpg
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • Doug SolisDoug Solis Registered Users Posts: 1,190 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2009
    Your first image is just drop dead gorgeous! I love it. I like your 2nd reprocessed image better than your original. The sky looks more realistic and the image appears to have better clarity. you lost some of the detail in the right side along the shoreline and above but that is the tradeoff.

    nice job on both.
  • dadwtwinsdadwtwins Registered Users Posts: 804 Major grins
    edited August 29, 2009
    The first picture has great dynamic range which you loose on the other shots. When you lightened the border between the mountain and its reflection, my eyes became lost at to what to look at.

    Your first shot allows the viewer to enjoy the mountain and it's reflection with out the disruption of the divider (trees). Once you lightened and gave detail to the trees, my eyes now ignore the mountains and the reflection which is not nearly as enjoyable to look at.ne_nau.gif
    My Homepage :thumb-->http://dthorp.smugmug.com
    My Photo Blog -->http://dthorpphoto.blogspot.com/
  • redleashredleash Registered Users Posts: 3,840 Major grins
    edited August 29, 2009
    I love the first shot--it really makes me want to be there! I also like your second one as re-processed. I sometimes do "pseudo-HDR" by tonemapping single images to bring out some details--I think it can work in some cases and IMO Photomatix does a good job with it. I do think your first Alpenglow shot was somewhat flat and I also saw some halos. But I like the second version a lot.

    Let's see some more!

    Lauren
    "But ask the animals, and they will teach you." (Job 12:7)

    Lauren Blackwell
    www.redleashphoto.com
  • NyteNyte Registered Users Posts: 164 Major grins
    edited August 29, 2009
    The re-worked version of the second image is better; you've improved the clarity and depth of the image. I do, however, think there's a bit more tweaking you could do.

    Possibly, select the dark areas to the far right of the image (use a high feathering value) allowing you make a localised levels adjustment to bring back a bit more detail in that region alone? Personally, I might also be inclined to darken the top of the sky very slightly helping to keep focus on the mountain and lake.
  • rontront Registered Users Posts: 1,473 Major grins
    edited August 29, 2009
    I do still like the first picture of the two you posted the best Rocky, but I think this second version of the second photo is much better!! To my eye, it just looks more natural, where I thought the first version looked a bit over processed. This one is very nice!!

    Ron
    "The question is not what you look at, but what you see". Henry David Thoreau

    http://ront.smugmug.com/
    Nikon D600, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Nikon 24-120mm f/4, Nikon 70-300, Nikon SB-700, Canon S95
  • Awais YaqubAwais Yaqub Registered Users Posts: 10,572 Major grins
    edited August 29, 2009
    Such a beautiful light you had to work with !
    Amazing photos
    Thine is the beauty of light; mine is the song of fire. Thy beauty exalts the heart; my song inspires the soul. Allama Iqbal

    My Gallery
Sign In or Register to comment.