User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Mission Impossible?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Mission Impossible?

    I'm in two minds about whether to put this in 'f/stop' or 'Not for critique' ....

    Yesterday at Tamborine, Allan and I stopped along the path and looking through the trees in the direction of the mid-morning sun, we both agreed: "Nice scene, but impossible shot". So faced with the challenge of something tough, we decided to have a crack at it anyway.

    While the composition is hardly award winning, I was quite surprised at how passable the original shot was.

    Having shot the image in RAW, I was then able to tweek a little more detail out of the shadows and give it a more 'natural' look (Natural, as in how we perceived the scene when we looked with our eyes).

    Anyway, I said I'd post this, so here it is and feel free to ask questions or make comments:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Loves The Wildlife. Mary Anne's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Dec 2009
    Location
    Brisbane Southside.
    Posts
    36,092
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    David Thank You for taking the time to share this with us..
    Very interesting what a little work does to an image I don't shoot in RAW so I have no idea as to whats its like to tweak in that way.
    I only shoot in JPEG and try and fix in PS a lazy way I guess though it gives me more time for other things.
    And I agree #1 looks good to me actually David I think I prefer it a little more to the tweaked version.

    I shoot with Canon And Olympus Cameras



  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Apr 2010
    Location
    Bribie Is Sunny South East
    Posts
    1,047
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The tweaked shot definitely shows up better on my screen. I give you 10 out of 10 for posting and attempting to make is "user friendly".

    I have heaps of similar shots where you walk along and just go WOW, what a stunning place, yet when you shoot it and get home you feel completely deflated because the beauty and feeling of the spot has simply not transferred onto the image.

    In the past I have put it down to inexperience, but I'm relieved to find I'm not the only person who is frustrated by this.
    Lloyd
    Canon 5D2+40D+L+Σ+S100
    Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
    Flickr

  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary Anne View Post
    David Thank You for taking the time to share this with us..
    Very interesting what a little work does to an image I don't shoot in RAW so I have no idea as to whats its like to tweak in that way.
    I only shoot in JPEG and try and fix in PS a lazy way I guess though it gives me more time for other things.
    And I agree #1 looks good to me actually David I think I prefer it a little more to the tweaked version.
    Mary Anne, RAW files hold a lot more data per pixel than JPEG files and they definitely allow you to get more detail out of the shadows in situations like this.

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LJG View Post
    The tweaked shot definitely shows up better on my screen. I give you 10 out of 10 for posting and attempting to make is "user friendly".

    I have heaps of similar shots where you walk along and just go WOW, what a stunning place, yet when you shoot it and get home you feel completely deflated because the beauty and feeling of the spot has simply not transferred onto the image.

    In the past I have put it down to inexperience, but I'm relieved to find I'm not the only person who is frustrated by this.
    Thanks Lloyd. It's mainly due to the camera sensor's difficulty in dealing with a scene like this where the brights are very bright and the darks are very dark (a scene with a large dynamic range).

    Depending on the look your after, you have a choice of exposing for the highlights and letting the less bright areas fall to silhouette. Or, you can expose for the darkness and let the highlights overexpose. Whichever pleases you artistically. In this case, the camera's metering being in 'Evaluative' (or 'Matrix') the expose seems to be somewhere midway, which resulted in some bright brights and dark darks.

  6. #6
    Member ozwebfx's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Dec 2009
    Location
    View Bank
    Posts
    63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another fine example of the benefits of shooting RAW.
    Canon EOS 40d: DXO Optics Pro 6: Lightroom 3 :Photoshop CS5
    Flickr Photostream

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ozwebfx View Post
    Another fine example of the benefits of shooting RAW.
    Yes, it's nice to know you have room to recover a shot if thinngs don't go as planned.

  8. #8
    Member Yournotdoingitright's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 May 2010
    Location
    Lakes Entrance
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would have taken 3 shots for HDR just to see the difference.
    Great shot and PP David

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Yournotdoingitright View Post
    I would have taken 3 shots for HDR just to see the difference.
    Great shot and PP David
    aha yes, but I guess that wasn't the object of the excercise

  10. #10
    Member Yournotdoingitright's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 May 2010
    Location
    Lakes Entrance
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah very true good job anyway but like the above posts you have more fudge factor if shot in raw
    I read somewhere that with raw you have up to 2 stops adjustment opposed to 1 stop with jpeg
    But its good to challenge yourself every now and then otherwise we don't learn anything
    Cheers

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    08 May 2010
    Location
    Nanuet, New York
    Posts
    643
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice work, very tough conditions from the look of it. Personally I would try a creative HDR...use something in the environment to balance the camera then fire it off (I like the challenge of using something natural...quite often you can get some interesting foregrounds with a wide doing HDR like that).
    John
    Nikon D800, D700, Nikkor 14-24 F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8D, 70-200mm F2.8 VRII, Manfrotto 190XB with Q5 PM Head,
    SB-900,600, portable strobist setup & Editing on an Alienware M14x with LR4 and CS5 and a Samsung XL2370 Monitor.

    Stormchasing isn't a hobby...its an obsession.
    For my gallery and photography: www.emanatephotography.com

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Jan 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    143
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi David

    Thanks for sharing and I agree with the sentiments re RAW also encourage people to try something like Lightroom if they are concerned with the time for RAW processing as things have improved a lot (I dont use PS at all now really).

    What I find interesting about the above experement is whether you found the scene 'impossible' to capture because it is technically impossible/difficult (which seems to be the way it is read re HDR comments etc) or whether it is an example of a beautiful natural scene that it hard to translate impressively into a 2D format? When I come across the above I really think of the later and it may apply here.

    Cheers
    Josh
    Check out my new site - www.wattsgallery.com - feedback welcome

    Gear - Canon 5D, 40D, 10-22, 24-70 2.8L, 200 2.8L, 50 1.8, 430EXII

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    19 Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisneyland
    Posts
    967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wattsgallery View Post
    Hi David

    Thanks for sharing and I agree with the sentiments re RAW also encourage people to try something like Lightroom if they are concerned with the time for RAW processing as things have improved a lot (I dont use PS at all now really).

    What I find interesting about the above experement is whether you found the scene 'impossible' to capture because it is technically impossible/difficult (which seems to be the way it is read re HDR comments etc) or whether it is an example of a beautiful natural scene that it hard to translate impressively into a 2D format? When I come across the above I really think of the later and it may apply here.

    Cheers
    Josh
    Yeah Josh, were were mostly thinking about the difficulty exposing such an image that results in the scene as you see it with your eye. Sure you can get some great results using HDR, but we were thinking more about approaching it with a single exposure.

    The choices you usually make in those situations are:
    (a) expose for the highlights and let the rest fall to black; or
    (b) expose for the darker areas and let the highlights blow out.

    Either choice can be artistically correct.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •