Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Detail Grand Canyon  (Read 2051 times)
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« on: July 06, 2009, 08:44:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok folks. This is detail of the canyon wall.
[attachment=15132:Lorraine...ersion_2.jpg][attachment=15133:Lorraine...hoto_134.
jpg]

I zoomed into the area for #2 to catch the detail that I noticed when I took #1.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2009, 09:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the first could use more of a 'foreground' ... seems a bit like a background with a missing subject.

The second has some focus issues ... a faster shutter speed or tripod would have helped a lot.  With this kind of shot, detail is important and the lack of sharp focus detracts quite a bit.  It also lacks 'dimension' and comes off a bit 'flat' ... even when the entirety of the image is 'far away', you still need a foreground and background to give the image some depth.

I love your passion for this stuff ... you clearly enjoy it a lot!  Keep going ... I look forward to helping each other get better.
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2009, 09:46:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Shutterpup,

a really nice image you have there, I imagine I could get lost in the details when this is big! What I dont like is the contrast and the colors, caused by the sun. I would convert it to b/w, and then work with curves on the contrast. I would:

1. Decrease the light tones quite a bit so these become comfortable to the eye
2. Decrease also the darks so they approach black
3. Leave the darker middle tones a bit lighter

It is a bit tricky so I'll attach a quick image, still not optimal, but more pleasing for my eyes. From this point you could go on with a second curve to refine your result. At least thats how I approach it  You also might want to experiment further with the curves, going for entire different looks. Also, you might consider shooting with less contrasty light.


Christian
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 09:49:38 AM by Christian Miersch » Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2009, 11:30:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
I think the first could use more of a 'foreground' ... seems a bit like a background with a missing subject.

The second has some focus issues ... a faster shutter speed or tripod would have helped a lot.  With this kind of shot, detail is important and the lack of sharp focus detracts quite a bit.  It also lacks 'dimension' and comes off a bit 'flat' ... even when the entirety of the image is 'far away', you still need a foreground and background to give the image some depth.

I love your passion for this stuff ... you clearly enjoy it a lot!  Keep going ... I look forward to helping each other get better.

Jeremy,
You are so right about my passion; my passion is for the desert.

About the shots. Both were shot on a tripod. For #2, shutter speed was 1/250 with f/8, ISO 100. I looked at the image of #2 as posted here and I agree that it looks flat and over-sharpened. It is an ugly little picture here; not at all what it looks like when I use it for my screen saver, and not what it looks like in Aperture. I went back and checked this out. I do have some issues with pictures going soft on me as I export them from Aperture onto my desktop, adjusting the size in Preview, saving and then downloading here. I thought I had figured those issues out; maybe not.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2009, 11:43:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christian Miersch
Hi Shutterpup,

a really nice image you have there, I imagine I could get lost in the details when this is big! What I dont like is the contrast and the colors, caused by the sun. I would convert it to b/w, and then work with curves on the contrast. I would:

1. Decrease the light tones quite a bit so these become comfortable to the eye
2. Decrease also the darks so they approach black
3. Leave the darker middle tones a bit lighter

It is a bit tricky so I'll attach a quick image, still not optimal, but more pleasing for my eyes. From this point you could go on with a second curve to refine your result. At least thats how I approach it  You also might want to experiment further with the curves, going for entire different looks. Also, you might consider shooting with less contrasty light.


Christian

Christian,
So that's what it looks like in b/w. Are you of the opinion that when working with difficult lighting in this kind of landscape, that conversion to b/w helps? Thank you for including the steps you followed in your conversion.

About the original colors. There are areas of the canyon that have limestone/possibly granite as well as the pinkish sedimentary rock. The color itself isn't contrasty; it is very white rock, even under the best of conditions. As for shooting under less contrasty light, this was a day trip taken out of Flagstaff to introduce my husband to the Grand Canyon; I had been there before years ago, but he'd never seen it. By the time we drove from Flagstaff, it was midday; he was ill on this trip and didn't have the stamina to stay longer than the afternoon. So much for my digression. It is what it is.

Going back to the b/w conversion. I downloaded a trial version of Silver Efex last night for 15 days. I have always had a love affair with b/w, never really could get into color. I'm looking forward to my next 15 days, trying conversions.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2009, 12:01:35 PM »
ReplyReply

#1 has a lot of contrasty details that make my eye wander all over, but not fix on anything.  #2 looks much better - it has structure, and looks like something I would want to climb right now.
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2009, 12:34:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Christian,
So that's what it looks like in b/w. Are you of the opinion that when working with difficult lighting in this kind of landscape, that conversion to b/w helps? Thank you for including the steps you followed in your conversion.

About the original colors. There are areas of the canyon that have limestone/possibly granite as well as the pinkish sedimentary rock. The color itself isn't contrasty; it is very white rock, even under the best of conditions. As for shooting under less contrasty light, this was a day trip taken out of Flagstaff to introduce my husband to the Grand Canyon; I had been there before years ago, but he'd never seen it. By the time we drove from Flagstaff, it was midday; he was ill on this trip and didn't have the stamina to stay longer than the afternoon. So much for my digression. It is what it is.

Going back to the b/w conversion. I downloaded a trial version of Silver Efex last night for 15 days. I have always had a love affair with b/w, never really could get into color. I'm looking forward to my next 15 days, trying conversions.

Shutterpup, it might help, it depends. I would not want to state a general rule. But when I have this midday look, where the colors are not contributing that much to the mood, I think it makes sense to just try b/w. Cant hurt, after all  And the most fun part about it -at least for me - is that I may discover things I  did not think about in the first place, e.g. it might completely alter the mood of a scene.

And I understand you dont have easy possibility of reshooting. (To be honest, on my hikes here in the saxon switzerland as its called (german czech border) I also often dont have the possibility to reshoot. If Im there, Im there.

Btw, you might also try GIMP, its free, and has similarities with Photoshop.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2009, 12:48:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
#1 has a lot of contrasty details that make my eye wander all over, but not fix on anything.  #2 looks much better - it has structure, and looks like something I would want to climb right now.

Dale,
Exactly what drew my eye to #2 to begin with. I really like the way the rocks are assembled by nature. I am a detail person; I firmly believe that the beauty of many things lies in the detail. The first book that caught my eye back in the 80's when I was trying to get a handle on photography was a book on macro. I don't recall the exact title nor the author, but the gist of the title was "landscapes of the mind." I never have forgotten that book; it had that much impact on what I really enjoy paying attention to when I look at nature.

I personally think #1 is cluttered, while #2 shows some pattern, texture, color.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2009, 12:52:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christian Miersch
Shutterpup, it might help, it depends. I would not want to state a general rule. But when I have this midday look, where the colors are not contributing that much to the mood, I think it makes sense to just try b/w. Cant hurt, after all  And the most fun part about it -at least for me - is that I may discover things I  did not think about in the first place, e.g. it might completely alter the mood of a scene.

And I understand you dont have easy possibility of reshooting. (To be honest, on my hikes here in the saxon switzerland as its called (german czech border) I also often dont have the possibility to reshoot. If Im there, Im there.

Btw, you might also try GIMP, its free, and has similarities with Photoshop.

Christian,
I hear that about altering the mood of a scene. B/W can do that, getting rid of all the extraneous stuff that can accompany color shots. Strips the subject down to the bare bones and gives some atmosphere. I'm going to play with #2, converting to b/w.

I've heard of GIMP. I thought it was only for Windows. I have Mac. Not better, not worse, just what I have.

Pup
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2009, 01:11:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Christian,
I hear that about altering the mood of a scene. B/W can do that, getting rid of all the extraneous stuff that can accompany color shots. Strips the subject down to the bare bones and gives some atmosphere. I'm going to play with #2, converting to b/w.

I've heard of GIMP. I thought it was only for Windows. I have Mac. Not better, not worse, just what I have.

Pup

I googled for "gimp mac" and as far as I read there is an version out for OS X
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2009, 01:57:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christian Miersch
I googled for "gimp mac" and as far as I read there is an version out for OS X


Christian,
Thanks for the heads-up on GIMP for OS X. I googled and read about it. Doesn't appear to be a beta offering. Only just several months ago I checked it out and it wasn't available. They(whoever they are) say that GIMP is almost as difficult to learn as Photoshop. We'll find out!
Again, thanks for taking the time to check.

Pup
Logged
byork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2009, 05:46:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Pup
These images look to me like you haven't used a polarizer. If your going to shoot at midday I strongly recommend doing so....you will find a massive difference when shooting things like rock faces. The effect can be duplicated in photoshop in some cases, but when you get that white glare on rocks your stuck with it.

Just a suggestion if you want to stick with colour.

Cheers
Brian
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2009, 06:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: byork
Pup
These images look to me like you haven't used a polarizer. If your going to shoot at midday I strongly recommend doing so....you will find a massive difference when shooting things like rock faces. The effect can be duplicated in photoshop in some cases, but when you get that white glare on rocks your stuck with it.

Just a suggestion if you want to stick with colour.

Cheers
Brian


Brian,
You've nailed it. For some reason, I have a problem remembering that I have the polarizer in my bag. Half the time spent shooting the Grand Canyon was done sans polarizer. I found that if I did the polarizing effect in Aperture, it left the rocks looking dull and lifeless.

We are getting ready for a "scenic" vacation and this reminder of yours go to the top of the list. Thank you.

Pup
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad