Babbs Covered Bridge 2nd Shoot

[zutty]

So I went back to this site and the light was AM instead of PM and I used a 14-24 instead of a 24-70. The day was sunny and clear but there were some really nice puffy clouds instead of almost cloudless like the 1st shoot. Here are a few preliminary results.


D810#3 Babbs Bridge #2-14-24 HD4c by drummist53, on Flickr


D810#3 Babbs Bridge-24-70 HD4 by drummist53, on Flickr


D810#3 Babbs Bridge #2-14-24 HD11 by drummist53, on Flickr


D810#3 Babbs Bridge #2-14-24 HD5b by drummist53, on Flickr

 

[cbarnard7]

Really like #1. I enjoy the comp and the colors.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I think your processing is working against you in the first and last shots. When you display a photo you take a 3D scene as you eye saw it and convert that into a 2D space with vastly reduced tonal range. It is important to remember that the image will only make sense in it's new 2D format if you maintain the relative relationship between the values. Though you can mess with the absolute values all you wish.
I'll try and explain what I mean, if you look out your ground floor window at your garden you will know immediately if the sun is shining bright or if it's a cloudy day. You do not need to see the sky at all to know this, you can tell the difference just by looking at a single flower. You see you have a great deal of experience of looking at the natural world and interpreting the visual clues, in the case of sunlight you immediately see brightness, a greater proportion of higher values. You will also see a higher acutance (the boundaries between the tones are more abrupt and better defined), though not necessarily high contrast as with sunlit leaves the signature is very much a high proportion of brighter tones with a low local contrast but high acutance. On a cloudy day you will immediately notice a softer local contrast and acutance.
It is very much the relative difference in values between different areas of the image that provide the visual clues that let us differentiate between not only sunlight and diffuse light but also time of day and the impression of depth.

By lifting the shadows, dropping the highlights and boosting the contrast in the first image you are really applying a uniform local contrast to the whole image by flattening the relative differences in the different parts of the image. This has the effect of removing the impression of both light and depth in the displayed image. If you look at the first image the bridge maintains both light and depth because of it's strong shape and the shadow line on the foundation. When I look at the trees though I find it difficult to tell if they are in sunlight or shadow, and feel they look flat because the impression of light and depth has been has been processed out. I also find them quite dark as one of the effects of increasing contrast in an area of predominantly brighter tones such as sunlit leaves is really only to increase the proportion of darker tones, again removing the impression of light. Take a look at the foreground leaves against the shuttering in the second image, which has a far more natural feel to it, it maintains the visual clues and very much says soft morning light to me. Scroll between the first two images and note the differences, I think you'll find that the first looks flatter and almost has an overall "grey tint".

 

[AlanKlein84]

What Tim is saying I think is that HDR flattens the tonal range and removes the contrast that our eyes and brain find attractive. I personally find that leaving shadow areas darker or even black add "pop" and excitement to a scene. Our brain cares little about shadow details focusing on the brighter areas of the subject. Adding too many details makes it seem unnatural. A lighter touch on the sliders on #1 and #4 might be in order.

 

[zutty]

I understand what you're saying and just want to post the 1st and last shots with no processing to demonstrate your point. I am still in the early learning phase of photography. I was a professional musician all my life until serious health issues forced me to retire and I then took up photography about a year ago to satisfy my creativity. I am in effect trying to transfer my ability from my ears to my eyes so to speak. The thing is, I had my whole lifetime to pay my dues with music and now am just starting again. It can be quite frustrating....Thanks so much for taking the time to help!
Here are those photos as they came out of the camera....What editing, if any, would you apply to these images? Thanks again!

D810#3 Babbs #2_009 by drummist53, on Flickr

D810#3 Babbs #2_022 by drummist53, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

I prefer the first and last shots as-shot, over the very flat, dingy-looking HDR rendering...there is such a thing as over-processing, as well a such a thing as trying too hard to make something out of something that is not there...a bald sky is something that we as photographers have encountered on many a day...I can deal with a bald, detail-less sky...dimming it, and making it a dingy gray color, and also lifting up the shadows so they appear to be lower middle tones in value makes absolutely zero sense to me, and to millions upon millions of other people who have been doing photography for decades.

Tim Tucker said it best : "By lifting the shadows, dropping the highlights and boosting the contrast in the first image you are really applying a uniform local contrast to the whole image by flattening the relative differences in the different parts of the image. This has the effect of removing the impression of both light and depth in the displayed image." IOW, it makes the image worse, not better.

 

[zutty]

Derrel...I understand your preference, but is not a moderate enhancement something to be considered if the original is lacking? Your statement seems a little extreme to me. There are an infinite amount of ways that a decent photograph can be treated. Your viewpoint just seems a little like black and white to me.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel...I understand your preference, but is not a moderate enhancement something to be considered if the original is lacking? Your statement seems a little extreme to me. There are an infinite amount of ways that a decent photograph can be treated. Your viewpoint just seems a little like black and white to me.

Light from everywhere. Light from nowhere. Ovecooked tone-mapping.

What you did is not "a moderate enhancement".1) It's not moderate. And, 2)it's not an enhancement. It looks worse than the original. This kind of overbaked tone-mapping creates the sense of light that comes from nowhere. And everywhere. At the same time. This is an extreme over-correction to the entire scene and every tonal value that was there. These photos are being played in the wrong key, utterly wrong. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but what you're working with here is something that's pretty roundly and soundly despised by many people who have a lot of experience in the visual arts. I understand where you're coming from though.

 

[Tim Tucker]

I understand what you're saying and just want to post the 1st and last shots with no processing to demonstrate your point. I am still in the early learning phase of photography. I was a professional musician all my life until serious health issues forced me to retire and I then took up photography about a year ago to satisfy my creativity. I am in effect trying to transfer my ability from my ears to my eyes so to speak. The thing is, I had my whole lifetime to pay my dues with music and now am just starting again. It can be quite frustrating....Thanks so much for taking the time to help!
Here are those photos as they came out of the camera....What editing, if any, would you apply to these images? Thanks again!

Try thinking about it in this way:

The light is your instrument, understand it and it's nuances.
The camera is your recording desk, understand how to get the best data on the disc.
The re-mix is your post processing, use it to enhance the performance that's already there.

Just as with your music you need a reasonable quality of instrument, (the light), a good recording desk, and a good understanding of what makes music work. Just as with music you have your lowest common denominator stuff such as puppy and kitten photos right through to the really progressive stuff that few understand.

Yes I would and do apply post processing as (in raw mode) the camera just records a literal representation which is not as your eye sees the scene or remembers it, but this is a complex subject that's difficult to compress into a few paragraphs. It's a learning curve.
Think of light as frequency, the higher frequencies are the brightest tones. From a raw file I would probably do something like this to the first image:
I would first compress the highlights but not too much, I would then probably try to raise the brightness by adjusting the exposure. This would bring more brightness into the image and allow a moderate contrast increase which I would apply locally and probably with the use of a series of luminosity masks that would effectively allow me to adjust different brightness ranges separately much like the tone controls on your mixing desk. I can also use these masks in conjunction with hue/saturation controls and even separate colour channels. The possibilities are really immense!
And as with your sound recording it doesn't pay to mess with the relative frequencies too much, as if you compress the values then expand them you are really giving every instrument the same tonal range and so flatten the sound? Making an image appear bright and sunlit is in many ways much the same as making a violin sound good in a recording.

Hope it's of some help.

 

[zutty]

Tim...I totally understand what you're saying and the analogies with music are clear. My frustrations are these: I began as a musician as a child. I obtained an education, put in my thousands of hours of practice and so I reached a level of technical skill that allowed me to concentrate on the creative aspects and also earn a living. Obviously I cannot do this with photography but I'm trying to educate myself as best I can. Dialog with nice people like yourself helps immensely. As I gain knowledge I begin to understand just how beautiful and challenging the art of photography can be. My goal is to produce the best images I possibly can. Again I thank you for taking the time to help me get there.

 

[AlanKlein84]

Which version of #1 and #4 do you like and why? I prefer the original. But you may like the edited ones. It's always good to critique your own images. What is it that you like?

 

[zutty]

Alan,
It's really hard for me to say which ones I really "like" because of my lack of experience. In using too much of all the various highlight, shadow and myriad sliders and effects I lose track of what I am trying to do. Make a photograph that is a balance of realism and art. That is assuming I have composed a worthy shot to begin with. When I get immersed in learning the technical aspects of the editing programs, I sometimes lose track of the big picture. If I sound confused, it's because I am....grin.
I'm headed for a drive down the Maine coast in a few days and hope to find some nice sites to capture. I love it when I know I've gotten some really good possibilities to work with.
Thanks for your insights.

 

[AlanKlein84]

Well good luck and good shootin'.

 

[HaveCameraWillTravel]

I wish they had at least stained those new boards or something where the snow plow hit it. Those brand new boards just look out of place.

 

[Jasii]

Loved the way Tim Tucker explained in depth. +1
I inderstand you are the artist here, but in the 1st pic I would have gone slightly lower and pointing a wee bit upward . This way I would have got the complete reflection and the top of the tree that was cropped on the right. Also were you using any filters here?
Rgds,