I am a sucker for tree photos and, especially snow-covered tree pictures, so I like these very much. #1 is my favorite - it has a more stylized feeling than the others. almost like a woodcut.
Va
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
I think the image is stronger with more focus on that tree in the foreground. I like the snow on the bark of the trees in the first image, but there's just too much going on for me. That 120 film takes in allot!
I think the image is stronger with more focus on that tree in the foreground. I like the snow on the bark of the trees in the first image, but there's just too much going on for me. That 120 film takes in allot!
It does! I'm still trying to handle it! It's like driving a car with a lot of horsepower!
Don't know - I was asking Rutt. I do know that if you're metering a scene with allot of snow in it and you care about anything but the snow you'd probably want to increase the exposure by 1 to 2 stops. However, if you want detail in the snow...
Don't know - I was asking Rutt. I do know that if you're metering a scene with allot of snow in it and you care about anything but the snow you'd probably want to increase the exposure by 1 to 2 stops. However, if you want detail in the snow...
Got it. Thanks for the crop BD. It does look better without all of that other stuff going on!
A few years back, I struggled with PP of shots with snow. I wrote a couple of longish posts which are especially relevant to color. Then I used what I found out and took a lot of skiing pictures.
A lot of the discussion was about the fact that snow can look more or less blue depending on the light. That might not be so relevant here.
But a simple thing I discovered is that you can have good detail in the snow as well as the rest of the pictures with a little simple PP. In Photoshop, the Shadow/Highlight adjustment is your friend. Use on a layer and maybe use a "darken" blend to keep it from lightening the shadows. Or you can use the "blend-if" sliders. This isn't rocket science, but it takes more patience than some advanced photographers I know possess.
I am pretty sure that when I am out and about in the snow, I see both the snow detail and the people, rocks, trees, whatever. This really is a case where the conventional wisdom that you should just blow out the snow to capture the other detail results in images that just don't look like what (at least) I see.
The following might be a little too much. Damon can do much better starting with the negative (I originally wrote "raw file"), no doubt. And you can certainly fiddle with the blend or paint on the layer mask. But the detail is there, so perhaps this isn't just an exposure issue, but rather a gama issue (how you choose your film and develop it for film or how you PP for digital.)
Great info Rutt. I usually use Lightroom since there is so little to do (I thought) with a negative. I will pull out the big CS5 guns for my next crop (of photos) and use your workfow ideas. Thanks!
Comments
Va
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
What would you think of this crop?
5394236050_3a1c2e7015_b.jpg
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I love it!
I think the image is stronger with more focus on that tree in the foreground. I like the snow on the bark of the trees in the first image, but there's just too much going on for me. That 120 film takes in allot!
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
What's the maxim?
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
It does! I'm still trying to handle it! It's like driving a car with a lot of horsepower!
What is it? You know I have highlight issues...
Don't know - I was asking Rutt. I do know that if you're metering a scene with allot of snow in it and you care about anything but the snow you'd probably want to increase the exposure by 1 to 2 stops. However, if you want detail in the snow...
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Got it. Thanks for the crop BD. It does look better without all of that other stuff going on!
Those threads are here and here.
A lot of the discussion was about the fact that snow can look more or less blue depending on the light. That might not be so relevant here.
But a simple thing I discovered is that you can have good detail in the snow as well as the rest of the pictures with a little simple PP. In Photoshop, the Shadow/Highlight adjustment is your friend. Use on a layer and maybe use a "darken" blend to keep it from lightening the shadows. Or you can use the "blend-if" sliders. This isn't rocket science, but it takes more patience than some advanced photographers I know possess.
I am pretty sure that when I am out and about in the snow, I see both the snow detail and the people, rocks, trees, whatever. This really is a case where the conventional wisdom that you should just blow out the snow to capture the other detail results in images that just don't look like what (at least) I see.
The following might be a little too much. Damon can do much better starting with the negative (I originally wrote "raw file"), no doubt. And you can certainly fiddle with the blend or paint on the layer mask. But the detail is there, so perhaps this isn't just an exposure issue, but rather a gama issue (how you choose your film and develop it for film or how you PP for digital.)