Anna Ruby Falls

smoke665 · Jul 11, 2018

Derrel said:
Over-processed, as Gary mentioned...yeah, my feeling as well. I try to avoid using that description most days, but if the shoe fits...

Guess I need to ask which shoe you're trying to fit??? All images were fully processed in LR, all of the images were single files, no composites (except for #3 a panorama), no presets, the sliders and tone curves on all the images are basically the same, maybe a tweak here and there. There is some variance between the images where selective dodging and burning took place, primarily because of the wide dynamic range from top to bottom, but other than that??? The "new ideas" I referred to earlier in the thread involve using sliders, tone curves and adjustment brushes. I'm in a bad area for signal and internet or I'd attach a clip of the the Develop panel. So how is it that you consider it "over-processed"?

The K1 was rated at 14.6 stops EV, the K1 ii appears even higher. I've heard claims of 16 stops, but I haven't verified it, which might also be some of the "over processing" look you seem to be seeing as the location I was shooting in, was a perfect spot for it to show off.

Derrel · Jul 11, 2018

Over-processed, as in looks awful on-screen. I tried tactfully describing what the images looked like, then another poster said it more-boldly, and now I'm giving you the unvarnished opinion, since you keep trying to defend your newly-developed idea, and to explain away our opinions on the appearance of the photos. Over-processed as in badly-processed. Looks un-pleasing. Super-contrasty. Detail-less blacks. Heavy green pollution in the water on #1. Harsh contrast, yet mid-tones that lack nuance and lack presence. One can recover highlights, but the tone curve needs midtones that stand up, that show up, that have some presence, within an image that possess a wide dynamic range, and these have poor mid-tone presence in the presence of deep,detail-free blacks, and very bright highlight tones. I do not care that they are single files, and that these are not composites: the rendering of the lighting was what I mentioned earlier; specifically, I do not like the way the lighting has been "rendered", and that's what the photographer must do: he needs to take the exposure data, and manipulate the tonal values from light to dark, and "render" the lighting, in other words, represent the light, show the light, show us a rendering of the lighting and what it was like. That's where these fall short, IMHO. For me.

As Gary mentioned above, "For my tastes, on #3 and #4 ... just seems to be on the edge of looking purposely over-processed ... an edge where nobody wins"....

Earlier, I was saying the same thing as he said, and here in this post, I'm actually taking the time to explain, in great detail, what I meant by the term over-processed...too much processing theory, not enough results that please...images that looked to me, perhaps purposely over-done. Regardless of whether the processing was of single files, or done in Lightroom, or done in Photoshop or any other image processing application, the end result, the rendering of natural light in a woods scene, looked contrived to me, with too much artifice, and as a result, the rendering of natural light and a woods scene looked...less-than-appealing to me. I cannot state it any more plainly or honestly.

I fully "get" your point when you write, "The K1 was rated at 14.6 stops EV, the K1 ii appears even higher. I've heard claims of 16 stops, but I haven't verified it, which might also be some of the "over processing" look you seem to be seeing as the location I was shooting in, was a perfect spot for it to show off."

Wide DR is one thing, and I have a couple cameras that have wide DR,and I am familiar with shooting wide-SR single exposures, but my issue was with the way the data within the exposures was rendered...all that DY has to be manipulated. What I see are detail-less blacks, brilliant highlights, and mid-tones that do not stand up, and an overall, total image "look" that looks...not-pleasing. You state that you're working on a new processing system; as a viewer, I'm telling you, Gary's telling you, that the look is being perceived as over-processed...perhaps that's not the right word. I do not really like the way the scenes have been rendered; there's wide dynamic range, yes, but the "feel" to the light is un-pleasing, to me. A picture is more than the brightest point and the darkest point,.and how widely they are separated; the scenes need to have some level of verisimilitude,m and these look the opposite, filled with artifice, which is why both of us fell back to the word over-processed.

I hope I've explained my thoughts more completely. As mentioned, I loved the shutter speed choices; water blur degree is a tricky thing, and I think you handles several water scenes fantastically, and like the compositions (#2 is an especially lovely composition), but did not like the way the lighting was rendered during the software-phase. I thought that the processing was the least-compelling aspect of these otherwise very solid photographs.

smoke665 · Jul 11, 2018

@Derrel neither trying to defend the process nor explain away anything, merely trying to understand. The images were not SOOC but they weren't overly processed either. I get back into a decent signal area I'll send you the info on processing because I'd like to know how/where we differ, and what to adjust for the future.

As I posted above, the other poster (you mentiion) liked the first image of the series in another thread posted separate then didn't in these. Same series, same processing, pretty much all synched to it, leaving me a little confused as to his change.

Derrel · Jul 11, 2018

smoke665 said:
Derrel said:

Over-processed, as Gary mentioned...yeah, my feeling as well. I try to avoid using that description most days, but if the shoe fits...

Click to expand...

Guess I need to ask which shoe you're trying to fit??? All images were fully processed in LR, all of the images were single files, no composites (except for #3 a panorama), no presets, the sliders and tone curves on all the images are basically the same, maybe a tweak here and there. There is some variance between the images where selective dodging and burning took place, primarily because of the wide dynamic range from top to bottom, but other than that??? The "new ideas" I referred to earlier in the thread involve using sliders, tone curves and adjustment brushes. I'm in a bad area for signal and internet or I'd attach a clip of the the Develop panel. So how is it that you consider it "over-processed"?

The K1 was rated at 14.6 stops EV, the K1 ii appears even higher. I've heard claims of 16 stops, but I haven't verified it, which might also be some of the "over processing" look you seem to be seeing as the location I was shooting in, was a perfect spot for it to show off.

Given your responses above, you now have a full answer. Hope the trip is awesome.

blurred45 · Jul 12, 2018

Awesome shots of those nice falls!

smoke665 · Jul 12, 2018

Derrel said:
Given your responses above, you now have a full answer. Hope the trip is awesome

Thank you Derrel. Whether we agree or disagree, I've always found your criticism valuable on some level. When we get back and it slows down I need to study them in more deatil.

smoke665 · Jul 12, 2018

blurred45 said:
Awesome shots of those nice falls!

Thank you!!

birdbonkers84 · Jul 12, 2018

really nice, but the first two look a little too green? compared to the last 2 images, my brain just has a hard time believing that it was that green. Keep being drawn to the last image so I guess that's my fav!

smoke665 · Jul 12, 2018

birdbonkers84 said:
really nice, but the first two look a little too green? compared to the last 2 images, my brain just has a hard time believing that it was that green. Keep being drawn to the last image so I guess that's my fav!

Not much difference in the processing, but there is a difference in location. The gorge is a narrow cut into the mountain, about a mile long. It starts out very deep and dark, it's a very steep climb to the top, where it is still a couple hundred feet to the top. Will likely revisit the 1st and 2nd image later. Thanks for looking

Peeb · Jul 17, 2018

I really dig #2. Beautiful location.

smoke665 · Jul 17, 2018

Peeb said:
I really dig #2. Beautiful location.

Thanks Peeb!! It was a great place to visit. There's a nice paved trail that winds up along the stream, crisscrossing many times with abundant places to get up close and personal. The only bad thing is at the falls itself, as you can't really get close because of the terrain. They've built a huge viewing deck, but that sort of kills the feel.

@Derrel and @Gary A. I've thought a lot about what you both pointed out. Thank you @Derrel for the PM followup. One thing at issue with this location was WB it was a PITA, Lr WB sample tool was all over the place. What I settled on by eye in retrospect may not have been correct, so this edit is a substantial warming bump. This image did have a tremendous dynamic range from the sky at the top to the shadows at the base, in my efforts to "even out" that range, I likely crushed the shadows more then I intended. I was still seeing detail on my monitor, but web versions seem to loose borderline details. So this edit is an attempt to "boost" the midtones that Derrel talked about and to open up the shadows. I'll admit I'm torn as I lean toward the deep darkness of the first. Maybe a test print of the two would help me settle.

Helen trip07092018_691.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

birdbonkers84 · Jul 17, 2018

smoke665 said:
Peeb said:

I really dig #2. Beautiful location.

Click to expand...

Thanks Peeb!! It was a great place to visit. There's a nice paved trail that winds up along the stream, crisscrossing many times with abundant places to get up close and personal. The only bad thing is at the falls itself, as you can't really get close because of the terrain. They've built a huge viewing deck, but that sort of kills the feel.

@Derrel and @Gary A. I've thought a lot about what you both pointed out. Thank you @Derrel for the PM followup. One thing at issue with this location was WB it was a PITA, Lr WB sample tool was all over the place. What I settled on by eye in retrospect may not have been correct, so this edit is a substantial warming bump. This image did have a tremendous dynamic range from the sky at the top to the shadows at the base, in my efforts to "even out" that range, I likely crushed the shadows more then I intended. I was still seeing detail on my monitor, but web versions seem to loose borderline details. So this edit is an attempt to "boost" the midtones that Derrel talked about and to open up the shadows. I'll admit I'm torn as I lean toward the deep darkness of the first. Maybe a test print of the two would help me settle.

Helen trip07092018_691.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr