Glencoe - well processed?

[Wim van Velzen]

hi all,

I am currently processing my holiday photos of this Summer. We have been in the Glencoe area, on Mull and in Sunart (all Scotland).
The light was often quite contrasty, but I can trust my Hasselblad 22MP back to give me plenty of shadow detail. That said, in some pictures the 'shadow fill' gives nice detail, but less nice colour.

What do think about this picture? [ Rollei 6008; 40 mm; stitched from 4 captures ]

Thanks in advance!

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

My goodness, I have shot that scene a time or two. You can get some great waterfalls to the right of this shot behind the house that stands in the lee of the mountains.

I like the shot, but the clouds are showing quite a lot of blown out areas on my laptop, which isn't calibrated correctly, so might be my screen, but if it isn't, then I would suggest processing two versions of the original RAW file for this image, one just for the foreground detail and then one just for the sky detail, then stack the two layers and blend/mask them back together into a single image.

Dave

[bill t.]

For my tastes it's a little harsh looking.  Quite possibly that interprets the character of the place quite well, but I'm an old softy.

Most of the tones are clumped together in peaks at the dark and bright sides of the histogram, with a relatively empty valley in the tonal midrange.  My tendency would be to pull up all the darks and pull down all the lights to fill in the midrange.  Without losing that brooding feeling, piece o' cake, right.

As Wim mentioned, the sky is pretty bright.  I find myself squinting!  Which is probably how it looked.  Anyway, would prefer to bring down the brightest parts of the sky to something less than clipping.

The transition from readable tones to inky black shadows seems too abrupt in the trees to the left and along the riverbank and to some extent on the sides of the mountains.  I would prefer a longer march of tones going from readable textures receding more gradually into blank shadow.  It's nice to have some absolute d-max blacks in most any photo, but IMHO not at the cost of letting textural information fall into a black hole.  Don't lose the d-max areas, but scale them down in size in proportion to the overall tonal scheme.

For the last few weeks I've been hung up on atmospheric effects, so I would suggest slightly brightening and lowering the contrast in the distant areas down the canyon, I think that would help increase the apparent depth of the scene.

But whatever, that's a pretty shot as it stands and I wish I could get out to places like that.

[Wim van Velzen]

Thanks for the input! Sitting behind the screen for hours can make me feel rather uncertain, as I cannot have a 'fresh look' at my own work.

Next try. I processed the images twice, once for the sky, once for the rest. Better?
In my opinion, it technically is, but the sky was quite bright when I took the photograph, so for me it conveys less of the original scene. The colours of the foliage is better though.

[Wim van Velzen]

BTW, I took many pictures in this Glen (that is Gaelic for canyon  ). The beauty is so overwhelming, that I am never really satisfied with my photographs of it...

Dave, here is the house you are talking about. Not much of a waterfall though - the weather had been clement!

[Chairman Bill]

Glen is Scots Gaelic for 'valley', not canyon. Admittedly it's a steeper valley than a strath, but not necessarily to the point of becoming a gorge (which is pretty much cognate with 'canyon'). Had you posted a photo of the Corrieshalloch Gorge, that would've been a canyon.   

[Wim van Velzen]

Bill used the word 'canyon' in his posting. I liked that, as it shows how we all have our interpretations and use words according to what we are used to. 

[Rob C]

Bill used the word 'canyon' in his posting. I liked that, as it shows how we all have our interpretations and use words according to what we are used to. 

I know, I know, even when we are absolutely wrong. Ask any politician.

(It's all part of the texting disorder.)

;-)

Rob C

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Next try. I processed the images twice, once for the sky, once for the rest. Better?
In my opinion, it technically is, but the sky was quite bright when I took the photograph, so for me it conveys less of the original scene. The colours of the foliage is better though.

Hi Wim,

I like to see detail in the sky, so for me the second shot is better, although the water in the foreground has suffered a little as a result, but none the less, I much prefer the second version.

Thanks for the input! Sitting behind the screen for hours can make me feel rather uncertain, as I cannot have a 'fresh look' at my own work.

I totally agree with that last statement, sometimes you can have the potential of a really great image, that needs gently teasing into existence and so spend so much time coaxing the best you can out of it, that you actually get fed up of looking at it.

Glen is Scots Gaelic for 'valley', not canyon. Admittedly it's a steeper valley than a strath, but not necessarily to the point of becoming a gorge (which is pretty much cognate with 'canyon'). Had you posted a photo of the Corrieshalloch Gorge, that would've been a canyon.   

Thanks for the lesson Bill. I am still struggling with lochs, lochans, lakes, firths, estuaries, straits and bays 

Dave

[Wim van Velzen]

Tapadh leibh! I just worked again on the second photo - better sky I think.

[RSL]

Very nice Wim. Makes me wish I could see the prints.