Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Storm Overhead  (Read 1909 times)
Larry Heath
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« on: November 04, 2012, 03:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.


SeaOatsPano1web by Larry Heath, on Flickr
Thanks for your time.

Later Larry
Logged
shaunw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 397



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2012, 11:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The storm clouds are very good, I like the comp and I think the colours work well...but there is no getting away from the blow area...for me it dominates the image I find it very distracting. Have to say if it wasn't for the blown sun...I think it would have been very good.
Logged

Canon 5D mk II Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40mm L, Canon 24-105mm L, Canon 70-200 L, Lee Filters, Manfrotto geared head/tripod.

''Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop''. – Ansel Adams
http://www.shaunwalbyphotography.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5951


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2012, 12:00:57 PM »
ReplyReply

There is something strange going on with this picture. The blown area indicates direct and strong sunlight, yet none of the four figures in the foreground casts shadows. Whatever weak shadows there are (the two figures in the leftmost corner), they appear to indicate a different position for the sun.

The reflections in the windows (which appear to be facing south) also indicate a sunny sky, not the stormy one. I find it difficult to explain such a stormy sky in one part and such a strong sunlight and sunny skies in the other parts of the image. Than again, I wasn't there, so I might be completely wrong.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4026



« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2012, 01:17:02 PM »
ReplyReply

The storm clouds are very good, I like the comp and I think the colours work well...but there is no getting away from the blow area...for me it dominates the image I find it very distracting. Have to say if it wasn't for the blown sun...I think it would have been very good.

I'm afraid that's right. The first thing I did when the image appeared was to wince at the bright light in the middle. The sky is great but as a whole the shot just doesn't work. If you have the raw, you might be able to do something to rescue it but the blown area is so big, I confess I rather doubt it. Shame.

Jeremy
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2012, 06:02:39 PM »
ReplyReply

There is something strange going on with this picture. The blown area indicates direct and strong sunlight, yet none of the four figures in the foreground casts shadows. Whatever weak shadows there are (the two figures in the leftmost corner), they appear to indicate a different position for the sun.

The reflections in the windows (which appear to be facing south) also indicate a sunny sky, not the stormy one. I find it difficult to explain such a stormy sky in one part and such a strong sunlight and sunny skies in the other parts of the image. Than again, I wasn't there, so I might be completely wrong.

I could picture it having happened as follows: you don't see shadows because the beach is not flat, and the shadows are behind a rise. The window reflections are hard to read, but quite possibly at a different enough angle that they are reflecting a bluer part of the sky. I'm just speculating, but I could picture that the storm clouds are localized enough that some other directions could be quite blue.

Anyhow, I like the image, blown highlights or no.

Brian
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 771



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2012, 06:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

So swap out the sky. Or part of the sky. You probably have some other shots from there?
Logged
AlexanderB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2012, 11:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

What panorama software did you use?
Logged
Larry Heath
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2012, 12:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

What panorama software did you use?

I used Photoshop CS6 Photomerge. Nothing special. I have barely figured that out, much less trying other more, I presume, sophisticated programs.

Later Larry
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 01:22:52 PM by Larry Heath » Logged
Larry Heath
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2012, 01:14:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, so I have found some time to deal with some of the criticisms of the previous iteration of the photo, so for your perusal here is the next iteration. Thank you for the criticisms by the way.


SeaOatsPano3 by Larry Heath, on Flickr

I have reengineered the bald portion of the sky to be, I hope, a little more pleasing to those who feel that there should always be texture and or color in highlight areas. I might point out that as I write this that on the top page of the Luminous Landscape the photo “Crystal Sea” is featured. Are there not significant areas of “clipped highlights” or maybe more properly ‘specular highlights” in this photo as well? OK, Crystal Sea is a high key photo and I suppose that large areas of pure white are less jarring and more acceptable in this context.  But actually the first iteration of this photo is a more realistic representation of what was actually to be seen with the naked eye, a blazing yellow white skyline, between the clouds and the horizon, which one could hardly even look at without actually “Wincing”, and that with dark sunglasses on.

The reason I tried to create this shot, was exactly because there was such an extreme contrast between the dark foreboding cloud deck racing out to the west onto the Gulf, traveling at 25 to 30 mph?, and into the blazing blue sky with brilliant white clouds further out on the Gulf, as well as the luminous glow under the cloud deck. The way the light was bouncing off the water and around the underside of the cloud layer produced a very strange yellow golden non-directional glow which only seconds before was simply a dark dull gray monochrome landscape in those areas under the cloud deck. It was like someone flipped a switch, one second everything is all cool dull gray, then BANG all this warm golden yellow light coming from everywhere at once and the horizon is blazing white gold.  The whole thing lasted maybe 30 second or a minute if that before it was all gone. So I will just go right ahead and pat myself on the back on having roused myself from my somewhat more than modest alcoholically induced haze, just long enough to grab my wife’s camera and push in some exposure compensation and bang off six hand held frames to try and do something with. Silk purses from sow’s ears and all that. Frankly what I’ve been able to produce here really doesn’t even come close to the reality of the scene, more is the pitty.

Next, I temporarily and somewhat crudely, fixed the incongruent reflections in the windows, which as bdosserman correctly points out are looking out from under the low cloud deck to a portion of the southern sky that is still quite brilliant blue with nice fluffy white clouds. Bdosserman also got it right in that there is a large, about 4’ high, berm between the people and the camera position that any shadows would fall on the backside of. Not that there would be much shadow, given that there is really no direct sunlight falling on them in the first place. As is now more apparent, the sun is actually above the cloud layer. The people on the lower left of the scene being lit mostly from light form the south show only modest shadows from that direction. The shots were taken at around 6 O’clock so the sun on a southwest Florida August day is still fairly high above the horizon.

There are still some distracting defects I have not been able at this point to remedy.  There are some harsh magenta and cyan color casts in the sand at bottom center. Anyone have a simple nifty way to deal with this?

Finely, I don’t seem to be able to get the jpg PS produces for the web to reproduce the tonal gradations in the shadows at the lower right that I have when viewing the file inside PS.  When using a web browser to view the files from Flickr the shadows are a bit more contrasty and blocked than what I would like. I have fooled around for an hour or so changing setting in PS web export module but to no avail. What is the secret kind sirs?

So there you have it.

Later Larry
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2012, 09:42:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, so I have found some time to deal with some of the criticisms of the previous iteration of the photo, so for your perusal here is the next iteration. Thank you for the criticisms by the way.

Interesting. It's a very different photo now, and as you say, the sun position comes off quite differently. Is it possible to keep some of the brightness of the first version, but with just enough headroom to hold the details from the second version? If what you were trying to capture was the striking contrast, I think a lot of that is lost in the second version.

Brian
Logged
Larry Heath
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2012, 03:19:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I suppose I have to blame someone for flogging this dead horse, besides myself, so I guess its St. Jude urging me on and Mr. Guinness for dulling my good senses. So here is the last iteration.


SeaOatsPanoHDRweb1 by Larry Heath, on Flickr

I guess after all this I at least need to print the silly thing once, put it up on the wall and look at it for a few days before it goes in the dust bin.

Later Larry
Logged
Mattnord
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2012, 08:58:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Honestly, I like the first one you did very much, but not so much the later versions. To me, blown highlights serve a purpose sometimes, and to me it made the first photo, rather than destroyed it.

I think you should just go with what you think looks best. Obviously, people's opinions on the matter will vary a lot, but only you can say if you're happy with it or not.
Maybe "technically" it's not perfect, but what the hell, art is not technical.

Best,
Mattias
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1692


« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2012, 06:03:19 PM »
ReplyReply

An excellent example of how vital it is to avoid highlight clipping in camera.  A gorgeous potential shot, flawed.

I'm frequently amazed at how much negative exposure compensation is sometimes required to retain highlight detail in skies.
Logged
niznai
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2012, 01:08:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Wow. Nice picture, dude, keep it the way you like it, nevermind the rest. You'll always have to trade off some detail in the highlights for some detail in the shadows, and personally I would go for blown highlights most of the time. Gorgeous shot, no flaws there.

Note to the earlier commentators, the sun is obviously behind the clouds hence no shadows.

Later edit. I see the OP explained it already, but to me it was obvious at first glance.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 01:14:59 AM by niznai » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad