snow
damonff
Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
It finally snowed in DC...
Fuji GW690III, TMAX 400 (D76)
Fuji GW690III, TMAX 400 (D76)
0
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.)