I am intrigued by the mood of this photo. I would like to view this image prior to any Photoshop if that is possible. I would also like to hear how you took the image and than how you prepared it. Also post a black and white version for comparison, as that will lead us into discussing the composition.
Marc,
Thank you very much for your quick reply. I don't currently have access to the original as I'm away from home but as soon as I get back this weekend I will post the image.
I was hoping you would ask how I took the picture and then how I prepared it because not only was I interested in having a discussion about the photograph as-is but about the creative process to get there. In fact, the way I prepared this photograph highlights an issue that has become more prevalent due to digital imaging and that is the amount of manipulation.
I took the shot at sunrise in search for dramatic lighting. I did get some of the lighting I wanted but it was more directional and harsh because the sky did not look like what I have captured here. The sky was a boring plain blue and I combined an earlier shot of the sky with the foreground to match how I perceived the place.
The first shot I took was actually of one of the moving rocks with the Grandstand as a background. I moved in closer and took the picture of the Grandstand from what I found then to be a good perspective.
I followed your exercise of B&W conversion (not the original shot but the manipulated one I posted to Smugmug so it's not optimal). Here it is:
Thank you very much for your quick reply. I don't currently have access to the original as I'm away from home but as soon as I get back this weekend I will post the image.
I was hoping you would ask how I took the picture and then how I prepared it because not only was I interested in having a discussion about the photograph as-is but about the creative process to get there. In fact, the way I prepared this photograph highlights an issue that has become more prevalent due to digital imaging and that is the amount of manipulation.
I took the shot at sunrise in search for dramatic lighting. I did get some of the lighting I wanted but it was more directional and harsh because the sky did not look like what I have captured here. The sky was a boring plain blue and I combined an earlier shot of the sky with the foreground to match how I perceived the place.
The first shot I took was actually of one of the moving rocks with the Grandstand as a background. I moved in closer and took the picture of the Grandstand from what I found then to be a good perspective.
I followed your exercise of B&W conversion (not the original shot but the manipulated one I posted to Smugmug so it's not optimal). Here it is:
Erich
I believe the question you must ask yourself is where do I want this image to go? Editorial publications such as Nat Geo,Time of even National Parks Magazines will not want anything to do with it once manipulated. If you want to create images for yourself and possibly publish them as artistic renderings, than the sky is the limit for manipulation. This actually helps me focus when I venture out shooting. As you know there are thousands of creative possibilities when in the wilds with a camera, so narrowing down what is possible becomes a challenge. I try to simplify by focusing on my vision! This focus helps me create the satisfying work as well. What I like about your statement is that you put together a vision YOU had of the place as you saw it! Even though you never witnessed it for real you were still able to make it happen. That says to me that you are on the right path to understanding what photography is about. What is the next step? Well to be honest what the publications want is for you to wait until it really happens! That means first you have the vision, such as you did. Than you execute it, but with out manipulation!
By the way the composition is dynamic and well balanced. The low cloud over the top of the rocks is the joining element between the large flaring cloud and the desert. Maybe some element in the foreground would create depth, which would be a plus.
Don’t forget to view images as black and white to study composition!
Please post the unedited image when you get the chance.
I believe the question you must ask yourself is where do I want this image to go? Editorial publications such as Nat Geo,Time of even National Parks Magazines will not want anything to do with it once manipulated. If you want to create images for yourself and possibly publish them as artistic renderings, than the sky is the limit for manipulation. This actually helps me focus when I venture out shooting. As you know there are thousands of creative possibilities when in the wilds with a camera, so narrowing down what is possible becomes a challenge. I try to simplify by focusing on my vision! This focus helps me create the satisfying work as well. What I like about your statement is that you put together a vision YOU had of the place as you saw it! Even though you never witnessed it for real you were still able to make it happen. That says to me that you are on the right path to understanding what photography is about. What is the next step? Well to be honest what the publications want is for you to wait until it really happens! That means first you have the vision, such as you did. Than you execute it, but with out manipulation!
By the way the composition is dynamic and well balanced. The low cloud over the top of the rocks is the joining element between the large flaring cloud and the desert. Maybe some element in the foreground would create depth, which would be a plus.
Don’t forget to view images as black and white to study composition!
Please post the unedited image when you get the chance.
Marc,
You make an interesting point, and you beg an even more interesting question, "How much is too much?"
When is "correction", "adjustment" or "technique" called "manipulation"?
I mean, is a polarizing filter allowed? Is it also allowed to use an effect in PhotoShop which provides a similar result?
Is a graduated neutral density filter allowed in optical photography? As a PS overlay?
Is IR allowed? If so, is a pseudo IR process allowed?
Is there an allowance or standard for bw/grayscale conversion from color images?
Contrast and Saturation? In the film world, you can purchase film in different formulations to enhance or subdue contrast and/or saturation. How much correction is allowed in the digital process before it is called manipulation?
Cropping is a time tested method of providing better composition and eliminating unwanted elements. How much is too much? Do you or the magazine editorial staff have final say?
USM sharpening originated in the film world. Is it allowed in either film or digital processing?
I believe it is fairly common knowledge that NASA uses rather intensive processing on many of their astronomical images, and yet they appear fairly regularly in National Geographic. Has anyone ever questioned the limitations put on earth-bound photography but allowed to astro-photographers?
Obviously, I can't expect you to provide a guide book for all the publications that exist, but if you have any practical advice or experience on "How much is too much?", I would greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
You make an interesting point, and you beg an even more interesting question, "How much is too much?"
When is "correction", "adjustment" or "technique" called "manipulation"?
I mean, is a polarizing filter allowed? Is it also allowed to use an effect in PhotoShop which provides a similar result?
Is a graduated neutral density filter allowed in optical photography? As a PS overlay?
Is IR allowed? If so, is a pseudo IR process allowed?
Is there an allowance or standard for bw/grayscale conversion from color images?
Contrast and Saturation? In the film world, you can purchase film in different formulations to enhance or subdue contrast and/or saturation. How much correction is allowed in the digital process before it is called manipulation?
Cropping is a time tested method of providing better composition and eliminating unwanted elements. How much is too much? Do you or the magazine editorial staff have final say?
USM sharpening originated in the film world. Is it allowed in either film or digital processing?
I believe it is fairly common knowledge that NASA uses rather intensive processing on many of their astronomical images, and yet they appear fairly regularly in National Geographic. Has anyone ever questioned the limitations put on earth-bound photography but allowed to astro-photographers?
Obviously, I can't expect you to provide a guide book for all the publications that exist, but if you have any practical advice or experience on "How much is too much?", I would greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Thanks,
ziggy53
Ziggy
There are two issues, content and color.
Regarding content, this is a very simple answer for me personally, which has worked thus far in my life as a pro. Change the density of the subject all you want but don't change the position of it! I know I know, some skies and plant colors go quite wacky once in a while but for the most part we all understand within our own minds what is honest, what looks good and what is over enhanced. I strive for the “looks good” but has been enhanced category.
Regarding color, the most difficult part of this is determining what is too much color or the right cast. I would love to tell everyone “but that is what I saw” and justify some over saturated colors. However, what I saw will never be printable in my lifetime. So the frustration is to achieve the alternative to the broad spectrum of the visual realm with the narrow, but ever increasing realm of digital capture.
Most of the diff between what we see and what we see in a digital file and or print is contrast ratio. I can spend more time on this later but just for starters, what we see is about 100,000 to 0 Contrast Ratio. What is in a 8 bit digital file is 255 to 0. A 16 bit file has no more contrast range but only more steps between 0 and 255. Within these limits it is easy to screw up! In fact this is why 16 bit is so helpful, we are able to manipulate the data between 0 and 255 with fewer visual blemishes. However, if the proper exposure is made of the proper scene than there is no great need for 16bit.
I really dislike the effect of the split neutral density filter when, for instance the walls of a canyon are darker above than below. I will try to come up with an example of this myself. I have a few of these images that I have tried to burry!!!
One point Marc mentioned in discussion at Zion last spring, was that immediately after opening an image in Photoshop, he quickly presses CTRL-1 and CTRL-2 and CTRL-3 to very quickly look at the Red, Green and Blue channel grayscale images as a quick way to examine the overall composition without the influence of color. This is what I think he was referring to about examining the B&W image to check composition.
I find this suggestion very helpful, and it takes just a few seconds in the image processing workflow.
I do like to stay in 16 bit processing mode for as long as possible, especially for Curves and Levels, where PS does a decent job of interpolating "between" tones. It makes for smoother looking results, with less obvious color artifacts and less evidence of correction.
Sometimes I also notice a difference by resampling to a larger image first, to give the software more pixels to chew on, and then downsampling for distribution, depending on purpose. (I won't downsample for some printing purposes, especially if it helps the printer towards a specific re-rasterisation.) This seems to work especially well if I need to bump the contrast either locally or globally, or a function which exploits contrast, like USM.
Are the HDR techniques valuable for landscape images intended for publication?
I do like to stay in 16 bit processing mode for as long as possible, especially for Curves and Levels, where PS does a decent job of interpolating "between" tones. It makes for smoother looking results, with less obvious color artifacts and less evidence of correction.
Sometimes I also notice a difference by resampling to a larger image first, to give the software more pixels to chew on, and then downsampling for distribution, depending on purpose. (I won't downsample for some printing purposes, especially if it helps the printer towards a specific re-rasterisation.) This seems to work especially well if I need to bump the contrast either locally or globally, or a function which exploits contrast, like USM.
Are the HDR techniques valuable for landscape images intended for publication?
Thanks again,
ziggy53
Ziggy
Yes and I have already used multiple exposures for commercial and editorial applications! Truth is, now it is difficult not to. However, I use a "improvised personal manual method" or as they would say in the military "IPMM". I only combine two exposures and most often with any moving subjects I actually use one exposure but process it through ACR twice, one for the highlights and one for the shadows.
I do not believe HDR used the way it exists in CS2 is practical in nature photography as the more exposures taken = the more time elapsed = the more the subject has moved which becomes a bunch of funky looking detail in the end!
Maybe CS3 will have changed something as this is one of the most exciting topics in digital imaging. Being from the film era, I was taught under the limitations of the film workflow and learning how to manipulate contrast was great for black and white with the Zone System, but for color next to impossible. Therefor I learned to "see" within a particular tonal range. That tonal range was Velvia equal to about 4 stops. Now I have had to readjust my "seeing" to include scenes in nature with as much tonal range as 10 stops! Here is a scene within the Hoh Rain Forest of Washington. This was a sunny day, very unusual for a "rain forest". With film I would have left the camera in the truck, but with digital I made it work. http://www.muenchphotography.com/search/GetSearchImage?imgName=SM-0817
One point Marc mentioned in discussion at Zion last spring, was that immediately after opening an image in Photoshop, he quickly presses CTRL-1 and CTRL-2 and CTRL-3 to very quickly look at the Red, Green and Blue channel grayscale images as a quick way to examine the overall composition without the influence of color. This is what I think he was referring to about examining the B&W image to check composition.
I find this suggestion very helpful, and it takes just a few seconds in the image processing workflow.
Hello Pathfinder!
Did I really say that????????
Yes I did and I am glad to hear it stuck. I do this quite often and it is a quick glimps at the black and white version of the image with out taking time. I have actually used this method in the field within the camera. I set the mode to black and white, understanding that i have time to mess around, and than view the image on the display in b&w. Often I will alter the composition after!
BTW, I always shoot in Adobe1998 and convert later for b&w.
Nightingale and I spent several days there on the way out and back from Zion last spring, We are both really looking forward to getting back there again and shooting some more and better images with your help.
I believe the question you must ask yourself is where do I want this image to go? Editorial publications such as Nat Geo,Time of even National Parks Magazines will not want anything to do with it once manipulated. If you want to create images for yourself and possibly publish them as artistic renderings, than the sky is the limit for manipulation. This actually helps me focus when I venture out shooting. As you know there are thousands of creative possibilities when in the wilds with a camera, so narrowing down what is possible becomes a challenge. I try to simplify by focusing on my vision! This focus helps me create the satisfying work as well. What I like about your statement is that you put together a vision YOU had of the place as you saw it! Even though you never witnessed it for real you were still able to make it happen. That says to me that you are on the right path to understanding what photography is about. What is the next step? Well to be honest what the publications want is for you to wait until it really happens! That means first you have the vision, such as you did. Than you execute it, but with out manipulation!
By the way the composition is dynamic and well balanced. The low cloud over the top of the rocks is the joining element between the large flaring cloud and the desert. Maybe some element in the foreground would create depth, which would be a plus.
Don’t forget to view images as black and white to study composition!
Please post the unedited image when you get the chance.
Marc,
Thanks for the excellent feedback. As soon as I tried the B&W conversion I saw compositional elements that were not as evident in the color version. (I didn't know about the CTRL-1,2,3 trick...it's a good one!). I had not thought about the implications of the ultimate destination for the photograph to how much manipulation you can apply to it. It makes sense that National Geographic and other similar magazines would not want a manipulated image like this and would be looking for a real representation of the actual scene.
So, had this not been manipulated do you think it is National Geographic potential? Based on your previous post it seems half the answer is establishing a relationship with the magazine and editors but given that has already happened would this be a photograph that would make it?
Here's the original version (just converted to JPEG from RAW).
And final version:
B&W version (of the altered image):
Here's another image I took with a foreground element. In this case I may have overemphasized the rock vs. the background.... What do you think?
Erich
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
Thanks for the excellent feedback. As soon as I tried the B&W conversion I saw compositional elements that were not as evident in the color version. (I didn't know about the CTRL-1,2,3 trick...it's a good one!). I had not thought about the implications of the ultimate destination for the photograph to how much manipulation you can apply to it. It makes sense that National Geographic and other similar magazines would not want a manipulated image like this and would be looking for a real representation of the actual scene.
So, had this not been manipulated do you think it is National Geographic potential? Based on your previous post it seems half the answer is establishing a relationship with the magazine and editors but given that has already happened would this be a photograph that would make it?
Here's the original version (just converted to JPEG from RAW).
I think this is just way to simple! Harsh light, subject in the middle, too much empty space,,,,,,,,
Erich
And final version:
Your vision of the place is clearly more exciting!
B&W version (of the altered image):
Seeing in black and white has always helped me with composition. BTW, I like how you opened up the shadows in the boulders.
Here's another image I took with a foreground element. In this case I may have overemphasized the rock vs. the background.... What do you think?
I think the middle ground is too large. If there was no sliding rock closer to the boulder outcropping and I had to use this one, maybe getting inches off the ground would have helped! That might through up the rock into the sky making a striking foreground, maybe!
If I were the editor at the Nat Geo I would tell you to go back and find the mood that you created in the combined shot in one shot!
And final version:
Your vision of the place is clearly more exciting!
B&W version (of the altered image):
Seeing in black and white has always helped me with composition. BTW, I like how you opened up the shadows in the boulders.
Here's another image I took with a foreground element. In this case I may have overemphasized the rock vs. the background.... What do you think?
I think the middle ground is too large. If there was no sliding rock closer to the boulder outcropping and I had to use this one, maybe getting inches off the ground would have helped! That might through up the rock into the sky making a striking foreground, maybe!
If I were the editor at the Nat Geo I would tell you to go back and find the mood that you created in the combined shot in one shot!
Thanks Marc. Well, that is one assignment I would not be troubled to take on. I really enjoyed my time at Death Valley.
Landscape photography is one of my favorite types. There's so much beauty out there and being away from the hustle and bustle of my daily life is refreshing to mind, body, and soul.
Thanks Marc. Well, that is one assignment I would not be troubled to take on. I really enjoyed my time at Death Valley.
Landscape photography is one of my favorite types. There's so much beauty out there and being away from the hustle and bustle of my daily life is refreshing to body, mind, and soul.
Erich
So how are you going to wait before you sign up for the Wild Utah workshop?
So how are you going to wait before you sign up for the Wild Utah workshop?
Believe me...this workshop looks awesome and I've been going over the details at least 10 times. I'm pouring through the budget to see if I can figure out a way to get this in.
I'm moving to Europe this summer and I'm being very cautious about our funds until I know better what our situation is going to be.
Erich
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited January 29, 2007
CS3 - Panos
Everyone!
Just a tip!
I have been experimenting with the beta of Photoshop 3 and must admit that the new "photomerge" works like a charm. In fact it is so accurate I believe it will save me hours and hours of time when performing large multi image panoramas.
I have been experimenting with the beta of Photoshop 3 and must admit that the new "photomerge" works like a charm. In fact it is so accurate I believe it will save me hours and hours of time when performing large multi image panoramas.
I agree, Photomerge is one of the (many :-) areas where PS CS3 is clearly *much* better than its previous versions.
I still use Panorama Factory, though, at least for my less-than-perfect-hand-held-sorry-panos...
Hiya Marc! First off thanks so much for taking the time to do this sort of thing with us here on dgrin. We really appreciate it!
My question isn't very well formed in my mind so I'll see if I can make some sense out of it for you (and me). I got hooked on the photo bug because I started seeing a few good pictures here and there. Mostly I felt like those pictures were more about being lucky than being a skilled photographer. As I progressed a bit and focused more on proper composition and exposure, I noticed that I was able to feel less lucky; that I was playing a bigger role in the results I was seeing. That said, I don't seem to have gotten myself to a point where luck isn't one of my biggest factors. I get some good shots, but only because I happen to be out shooting. Or I get some good shots only because I missed an opportunity last time and now I know a bit better what to look for. What part does luck play in the serious photography biz? Is it a matter of just getting out there to have a chance at being lucky? Or can you go out and turn most any situation into photographic results?
In other words is it more that you know what to look for, or more that you're out there looking?
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Hiya Marc! First off thanks so much for taking the time to do this sort of thing with us here on dgrin. We really appreciate it!
My question isn't very well formed in my mind so I'll see if I can make some sense out of it for you (and me). I got hooked on the photo bug because I started seeing a few good pictures here and there. Mostly I felt like those pictures were more about being lucky than being a skilled photographer. As I progressed a bit and focused more on proper composition and exposure, I noticed that I was able to feel less lucky; that I was playing a bigger role in the results I was seeing. That said, I don't seem to have gotten myself to a point where luck isn't one of my biggest factors. I get some good shots, but only because I happen to be out shooting. Or I get some good shots only because I missed an opportunity last time and now I know a bit better what to look for. What part does luck play in the serious photography biz? Is it a matter of just getting out there to have a chance at being lucky? Or can you go out and turn most any situation into photographic results?
In other words is it more that you know what to look for, or more that you're out there looking?
I first thought luck had much to do with life! Than I began realizing that luck does not really exist! Ok Ok, just so you know, I am a photographer not a philosopher but here it goes.
Luck = success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions
1. Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
2. Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
3. Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.
As I understand, the rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. As I study religion there really is no mention of luck due to faith. However, once in a while I do get lucky being married!!!! so I guess there must be some luck!!!! I told you I was a photographer....
Ok back to being serious! I could not afford to leave my success as a photographer up to luck. Many times I have made logical predictions of weather with the desire of obtaining the best possible light for a given scene. You know how difficult it is to predict weather! I have an example below.
I believe we are ignorant until we have the knowledge, experience and faith in what we are doing. If we are ignorant about what we are attempting to accomplish than we leave the probability of success to luck. If we are blessed with the understanding of our visions than we apply ourselves with faith in the outcome.
I was driving south through enormous thunderstorms to Ouray Colorado when I realized that if several things happened I might get the shot I was hoping for. First, the large storm over the Colorado Plateau to my West would need to continue its rapid pace to the East as it was currently making. Second, there could not be another storm behind it. Third, I would need a clear traffic free drive to arrive on location in the nick of time which was when the sun would break out just before sinking into the horizon. Turns out all three occurred and I got the shot.
I believe that my knowledge and experience of the weather patterns in this area allowed me to envision a possible outcome. I gained this knowledge and experience from traveling around the country my entire life chasing light. I learned this from my father, who has chased the light his entire life as well who learned it from his father, Josef Muench who chased it.
I believe that the more you invest the better the return and that most of the time the only glue keeping it all together is faith!
I believe we are ignorant until we have the knowledge, experience and faith in what we are doing. If we are ignorant about what we are attempting to accomplish than we leave the probability of success to luck. If we are blessed with the understanding of our visions than we apply ourselves with faith in the outcome.
This is one of the sagest things I think I've ever read. Mike Lane addressed an issue that is a huge issue for me, but I had not yet identified it as an issue worth segregating until he mentioned it.
A lot of the time if people compliment a photo of mine I shuffle my feet and mumble something about luck. (OK, maybe not quite that bad but you get the gist!) I never had the confidence in my photography to even consider the idea that having a little faith might change that outcome.
Thank you for this piece of advice and hope! And I'm really looking forward to May.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. ~Thomas Jefferson
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Luck has a peculiar habit of favoring those who don't depend on it. ~Author Unknown
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Luck never made a man wise. ~Seneca, Letters to Lucilius[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]If one does not know to which port is sailing, no wind is favorable. ~Seneca
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Happiness often sneaks in through a door you didn't know you left open. ~John Barrymore
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Luck? I don't know anything about luck. I've never banked on it, and I'm afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: Hard work -- and realizing what is opportunity and what isn't. ~Lucille Ball
[/FONT]The golden opportunity you are seeking is in yourself. It is not in your environment; it is not in luck or chance, or the help of others; it is in yourself alone. ~Orison Swett Marden
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work. ~Harry Golden[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Everything in life is luck. ~Donald Trump (ziggy note: "The Donald" may be an enigma )
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Go and wake up your luck. ~Persian Saying
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] It's hard to detect good luck - it looks so much like something you've earned. ~Frank A. Clark
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit. ~R.E. Shay
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered. ~William Shakespeare[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Ziggy
Great quotes, thanks for digging these up!
Ok now who has an image they feel was due to all luck, and please share your story.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
Ok now who has an image they feel was due to all luck, and please share your story.
Good Luck![/FONT]
I know that this does not fall into the category of landscape or field/street, but I highly consider this shot to be one of the best ones that I have taken, and completely based on luck:
As a preface, I consider most photography of animals "luck." I cannot predict what they will do, nor can I communicate with them effectively to make them look a certain way or often times just stay put where they are so I can move around.
This shot was taken with my first digital camera, a very old 2.0 MP Sony point-and-shoot. This is the first aspect of luck that I consider. I did have a dSLR at the time but no time to run downstairs to grab it, which would have wakened my dog and disrupted the pose. This, IMO, was luck not really working with me (but there nonetheless).
Secondly, he fell asleep in this almost perfectl symmetrical position. He never does this and still has never done it in the 3 years since this photo was taken. Believe me, I've stalked him trying to catch him doing it so I can retake this photo with a "real" camera!
Thirdly, I had to crop a bit out of this photo to get him centered, to create the feeling of simplicity. But I didn't consciously do this at the time because I was much more inexperienced with composition. I played around with different aspects of post-processing in PS until I got something that looked right. Isn't this considered luck as well? I know all of us at some point play around with crazy adjustments that at first maybe didn't feel logical (or maybe my inexperience is showing here?).
Sorry again that this isn't of the appropriate category, but since we were discussing some of the more philosophical aspects of photography I thought it would apply. Mods please feel free to remove this if necessary.
When I was living up in the Seattle area, I would make it a point to go to the tulip fest every year. This shot is from my first ever trip up there when I was still shooting with a P&S.
Now, I don't know this child, and I can guarantee you I didn't ask anyone to dress her in the same exact colors as the tulips in which she was playing. And I didn't stalk her around the tulip fields like a wierdo trying to get a chance shot. I looked over, she squatted down, and I got a pic. It's one of my favorites to this day.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
Now, I don't know this child, and I can guarantee you I didn't ask anyone to dress her in the same exact colors as the tulips in which she was playing. And I didn't stalk her around the tulip fields like a wierdo trying to get a chance shot. I looked over, she squatted down, and I got a pic. It's one of my favorites to this day.
You mean we are supposed to believe that you didn't PS the whole thing (which is relatively easy since you can lock the green and the head and just make everything else same pinkish purple)?
Comments
Marc,
Thank you very much for your quick reply. I don't currently have access to the original as I'm away from home but as soon as I get back this weekend I will post the image.
I was hoping you would ask how I took the picture and then how I prepared it because not only was I interested in having a discussion about the photograph as-is but about the creative process to get there. In fact, the way I prepared this photograph highlights an issue that has become more prevalent due to digital imaging and that is the amount of manipulation.
I took the shot at sunrise in search for dramatic lighting. I did get some of the lighting I wanted but it was more directional and harsh because the sky did not look like what I have captured here. The sky was a boring plain blue and I combined an earlier shot of the sky with the foreground to match how I perceived the place.
The first shot I took was actually of one of the moving rocks with the Grandstand as a background. I moved in closer and took the picture of the Grandstand from what I found then to be a good perspective.
I followed your exercise of B&W conversion (not the original shot but the manipulated one I posted to Smugmug so it's not optimal). Here it is:
Erich
OK, On with the show!
By the way the composition is dynamic and well balanced. The low cloud over the top of the rocks is the joining element between the large flaring cloud and the desert. Maybe some element in the foreground would create depth, which would be a plus.
Don’t forget to view images as black and white to study composition!
Please post the unedited image when you get the chance.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Marc,
You make an interesting point, and you beg an even more interesting question, "How much is too much?"
When is "correction", "adjustment" or "technique" called "manipulation"?
I mean, is a polarizing filter allowed? Is it also allowed to use an effect in PhotoShop which provides a similar result?
Is a graduated neutral density filter allowed in optical photography? As a PS overlay?
Is IR allowed? If so, is a pseudo IR process allowed?
Is there an allowance or standard for bw/grayscale conversion from color images?
Contrast and Saturation? In the film world, you can purchase film in different formulations to enhance or subdue contrast and/or saturation. How much correction is allowed in the digital process before it is called manipulation?
Cropping is a time tested method of providing better composition and eliminating unwanted elements. How much is too much? Do you or the magazine editorial staff have final say?
USM sharpening originated in the film world. Is it allowed in either film or digital processing?
I believe it is fairly common knowledge that NASA uses rather intensive processing on many of their astronomical images, and yet they appear fairly regularly in National Geographic. Has anyone ever questioned the limitations put on earth-bound photography but allowed to astro-photographers?
Obviously, I can't expect you to provide a guide book for all the publications that exist, but if you have any practical advice or experience on "How much is too much?", I would greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Thanks,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
There are two issues, content and color.
Regarding content, this is a very simple answer for me personally, which has worked thus far in my life as a pro. Change the density of the subject all you want but don't change the position of it! I know I know, some skies and plant colors go quite wacky once in a while but for the most part we all understand within our own minds what is honest, what looks good and what is over enhanced. I strive for the “looks good” but has been enhanced category.
Regarding color, the most difficult part of this is determining what is too much color or the right cast. I would love to tell everyone “but that is what I saw” and justify some over saturated colors. However, what I saw will never be printable in my lifetime. So the frustration is to achieve the alternative to the broad spectrum of the visual realm with the narrow, but ever increasing realm of digital capture.
Most of the diff between what we see and what we see in a digital file and or print is contrast ratio. I can spend more time on this later but just for starters, what we see is about 100,000 to 0 Contrast Ratio. What is in a 8 bit digital file is 255 to 0. A 16 bit file has no more contrast range but only more steps between 0 and 255. Within these limits it is easy to screw up! In fact this is why 16 bit is so helpful, we are able to manipulate the data between 0 and 255 with fewer visual blemishes. However, if the proper exposure is made of the proper scene than there is no great need for 16bit.
I really dislike the effect of the split neutral density filter when, for instance the walls of a canyon are darker above than below. I will try to come up with an example of this myself. I have a few of these images that I have tried to burry!!!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I find this suggestion very helpful, and it takes just a few seconds in the image processing workflow.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Thanks Marc,
I do like to stay in 16 bit processing mode for as long as possible, especially for Curves and Levels, where PS does a decent job of interpolating "between" tones. It makes for smoother looking results, with less obvious color artifacts and less evidence of correction.
Sometimes I also notice a difference by resampling to a larger image first, to give the software more pixels to chew on, and then downsampling for distribution, depending on purpose. (I won't downsample for some printing purposes, especially if it helps the printer towards a specific re-rasterisation.) This seems to work especially well if I need to bump the contrast either locally or globally, or a function which exploits contrast, like USM.
Are the HDR techniques valuable for landscape images intended for publication?
Thanks again,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes and I have already used multiple exposures for commercial and editorial applications! Truth is, now it is difficult not to. However, I use a "improvised personal manual method" or as they would say in the military "IPMM". I only combine two exposures and most often with any moving subjects I actually use one exposure but process it through ACR twice, one for the highlights and one for the shadows.
I do not believe HDR used the way it exists in CS2 is practical in nature photography as the more exposures taken = the more time elapsed = the more the subject has moved which becomes a bunch of funky looking detail in the end!
Maybe CS3 will have changed something as this is one of the most exciting topics in digital imaging. Being from the film era, I was taught under the limitations of the film workflow and learning how to manipulate contrast was great for black and white with the Zone System, but for color next to impossible. Therefor I learned to "see" within a particular tonal range. That tonal range was Velvia equal to about 4 stops. Now I have had to readjust my "seeing" to include scenes in nature with as much tonal range as 10 stops! Here is a scene within the Hoh Rain Forest of Washington. This was a sunny day, very unusual for a "rain forest". With film I would have left the camera in the truck, but with digital I made it work.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Did I really say that????????
Yes I did and I am glad to hear it stuck. I do this quite often and it is a quick glimps at the black and white version of the image with out taking time. I have actually used this method in the field within the camera. I set the mode to black and white, understanding that i have time to mess around, and than view the image on the display in b&w. Often I will alter the composition after!
BTW, I always shoot in Adobe1998 and convert later for b&w.
Looks like I will se ya in Wild Utah!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Yes, I do pay attention.:D
Looking forward to southern Utah.
Nightingale and I spent several days there on the way out and back from Zion last spring, We are both really looking forward to getting back there again and shooting some more and better images with your help.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Marc,
Thanks for the excellent feedback. As soon as I tried the B&W conversion I saw compositional elements that were not as evident in the color version. (I didn't know about the CTRL-1,2,3 trick...it's a good one!). I had not thought about the implications of the ultimate destination for the photograph to how much manipulation you can apply to it. It makes sense that National Geographic and other similar magazines would not want a manipulated image like this and would be looking for a real representation of the actual scene.
So, had this not been manipulated do you think it is National Geographic potential? Based on your previous post it seems half the answer is establishing a relationship with the magazine and editors but given that has already happened would this be a photograph that would make it?
Here's the original version (just converted to JPEG from RAW).
And final version:
B&W version (of the altered image):
Here's another image I took with a foreground element. In this case I may have overemphasized the rock vs. the background.... What do you think?
Erich
And final version:
Your vision of the place is clearly more exciting!
B&W version (of the altered image):
Seeing in black and white has always helped me with composition. BTW, I like how you opened up the shadows in the boulders.
Here's another image I took with a foreground element. In this case I may have overemphasized the rock vs. the background.... What do you think?
I think the middle ground is too large. If there was no sliding rock closer to the boulder outcropping and I had to use this one, maybe getting inches off the ground would have helped! That might through up the rock into the sky making a striking foreground, maybe!
If I were the editor at the Nat Geo I would tell you to go back and find the mood that you created in the combined shot in one shot!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Thanks Marc. Well, that is one assignment I would not be troubled to take on. I really enjoyed my time at Death Valley.
Landscape photography is one of my favorite types. There's so much beauty out there and being away from the hustle and bustle of my daily life is refreshing to mind, body, and soul.
Erich
So how are you going to wait before you sign up for the Wild Utah workshop?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Believe me...this workshop looks awesome and I've been going over the details at least 10 times. I'm pouring through the budget to see if I can figure out a way to get this in.
I'm moving to Europe this summer and I'm being very cautious about our funds until I know better what our situation is going to be.
Erich
Everyone!
Just a tip!
I have been experimenting with the beta of Photoshop 3 and must admit that the new "photomerge" works like a charm. In fact it is so accurate I believe it will save me hours and hours of time when performing large multi image panoramas.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I agree, Photomerge is one of the (many
I still use Panorama Factory, though, at least for my less-than-perfect-hand-held-sorry-panos...
Good to see you here at Dgrin!
My question isn't very well formed in my mind so I'll see if I can make some sense out of it for you (and me). I got hooked on the photo bug because I started seeing a few good pictures here and there. Mostly I felt like those pictures were more about being lucky than being a skilled photographer. As I progressed a bit and focused more on proper composition and exposure, I noticed that I was able to feel less lucky; that I was playing a bigger role in the results I was seeing. That said, I don't seem to have gotten myself to a point where luck isn't one of my biggest factors. I get some good shots, but only because I happen to be out shooting. Or I get some good shots only because I missed an opportunity last time and now I know a bit better what to look for. What part does luck play in the serious photography biz? Is it a matter of just getting out there to have a chance at being lucky? Or can you go out and turn most any situation into photographic results?
In other words is it more that you know what to look for, or more that you're out there looking?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I first thought luck had much to do with life! Than I began realizing that luck does not really exist! Ok Ok, just so you know, I am a photographer not a philosopher but here it goes.
Luck = success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions
1. Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
2. Circumstantial luck, that is, luck with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
3. Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.
As I understand, the rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. As I study religion there really is no mention of luck due to faith. However, once in a while I do get lucky being married!!!! so I guess there must be some luck!!!! I told you I was a photographer....
Ok back to being serious! I could not afford to leave my success as a photographer up to luck. Many times I have made logical predictions of weather with the desire of obtaining the best possible light for a given scene. You know how difficult it is to predict weather! I have an example below.
I believe we are ignorant until we have the knowledge, experience and faith in what we are doing. If we are ignorant about what we are attempting to accomplish than we leave the probability of success to luck. If we are blessed with the understanding of our visions than we apply ourselves with faith in the outcome.
Here is my example: tm-6178.jpeg
I was driving south through enormous thunderstorms to Ouray Colorado when I realized that if several things happened I might get the shot I was hoping for. First, the large storm over the Colorado Plateau to my West would need to continue its rapid pace to the East as it was currently making. Second, there could not be another storm behind it. Third, I would need a clear traffic free drive to arrive on location in the nick of time which was when the sun would break out just before sinking into the horizon. Turns out all three occurred and I got the shot.
I believe that my knowledge and experience of the weather patterns in this area allowed me to envision a possible outcome. I gained this knowledge and experience from traveling around the country my entire life chasing light. I learned this from my father, who has chased the light his entire life as well who learned it from his father, Josef Muench who chased it.
I believe that the more you invest the better the return and that most of the time the only glue keeping it all together is faith!
Cheers
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I guess your point is "Luck favors a prepared mind" :-)
Cheers!
"Prior Preperation Prevents Poor Performance":D:D
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
It's the ability to visualize what a good shot should look like, and having the skill to bring the vision to reality.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I will be chasin da light for 5 days in Utah comin this May! Check out the workshop page for details on joining me....http://muenchphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/2370073
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
This is one of the sagest things I think I've ever read. Mike Lane addressed an issue that is a huge issue for me, but I had not yet identified it as an issue worth segregating until he mentioned it.
A lot of the time if people compliment a photo of mine I shuffle my feet and mumble something about luck. (OK, maybe not quite that bad but you get the gist!) I never had the confidence in my photography to even consider the idea that having a little faith might change that outcome.
Thank you for this piece of advice and hope! And I'm really looking forward to May.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] I'm a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it. ~Thomas Jefferson
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Luck has a peculiar habit of favoring those who don't depend on it. ~Author Unknown
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Luck never made a man wise. ~Seneca, Letters to Lucilius[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]If one does not know to which port is sailing, no wind is favorable. ~Seneca
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
Happiness often sneaks in through a door you didn't know you left open. ~John Barrymore
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Luck? I don't know anything about luck. I've never banked on it, and I'm afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: Hard work -- and realizing what is opportunity and what isn't. ~Lucille Ball
[/FONT]The golden opportunity you are seeking is in yourself. It is not in your environment; it is not in luck or chance, or the help of others; it is in yourself alone. ~Orison Swett Marden
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work. ~Harry Golden[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Everything in life is luck. ~Donald Trump (ziggy note: "The Donald" may be an enigma
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Go and wake up your luck. ~Persian Saying
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] It's hard to detect good luck - it looks so much like something you've earned. ~Frank A. Clark
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit. ~R.E. Shay
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif] Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered. ~William Shakespeare[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT]
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]Ziggy
Great quotes, thanks for digging these up!
Ok now who has an image they feel was due to all luck, and please share your story.
Good Luck![/FONT]
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
As a preface, I consider most photography of animals "luck." I cannot predict what they will do, nor can I communicate with them effectively to make them look a certain way or often times just stay put where they are so I can move around.
This shot was taken with my first digital camera, a very old 2.0 MP Sony point-and-shoot. This is the first aspect of luck that I consider. I did have a dSLR at the time but no time to run downstairs to grab it, which would have wakened my dog and disrupted the pose. This, IMO, was luck not really working with me (but there nonetheless).
Secondly, he fell asleep in this almost perfectl symmetrical position. He never does this and still has never done it in the 3 years since this photo was taken. Believe me, I've stalked him trying to catch him doing it so I can retake this photo with a "real" camera!
Thirdly, I had to crop a bit out of this photo to get him centered, to create the feeling of simplicity. But I didn't consciously do this at the time because I was much more inexperienced with composition. I played around with different aspects of post-processing in PS until I got something that looked right. Isn't this considered luck as well? I know all of us at some point play around with crazy adjustments that at first maybe didn't feel logical (or maybe my inexperience is showing here?).
Sorry again that this isn't of the appropriate category, but since we were discussing some of the more philosophical aspects of photography I thought it would apply. Mods please feel free to remove this if necessary.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Now, I don't know this child, and I can guarantee you I didn't ask anyone to dress her in the same exact colors as the tulips in which she was playing. And I didn't stalk her around the tulip fields like a wierdo trying to get a chance shot. I looked over, she squatted down, and I got a pic. It's one of my favorites to this day.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
You mean we are supposed to believe that you didn't PS the whole thing (which is relatively easy since you can lock the green and the head and just make everything else same pinkish purple)?
JK, great shot!