| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2005 03:48:06 PM · #1 |
I'd love some thoughts about this photo:
I have so many of these mountains (several that you've seen in various challenges and elsewhere). But I liked how this one turned out. It's kind of weird, but I like it.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 03:56:56 PM · #2 |
I love it. Very dramatic.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 04:01:14 PM · #3 |
They look a little small,like models to me. Nothing there to give it a sense of scale..
Also why is ther lateral darkening of the sky?
|
|
|
|
01/16/2005 04:01:18 PM · #4 |
| We like it (which is about as far as our technical prowess allowes us to go when giving a critque) Really moody and intimidating. The big sky makes the mountains look small. |
|
|
|
01/16/2005 04:03:02 PM · #5 |
| Beautiful job David, I like it a lot. |
|
|
|
01/16/2005 04:28:24 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
They look a little small,like models to me. Nothing there to give it a sense of scale..
Also why is ther lateral darkening of the sky? |
Scale is often a problem when dealing with mountains. I don't concern myself about it too much since mountains are almost always alluded to as being BIG.
The lateral darkening of the sky was from two things: time of day and blueness of the sky. The channel mixer was set very low for the blues--in the negatives, and the reds were set quite high--beyond 100. In effect, this was like putting a red filter on the camera (which was already wearing a polarizing lens), which makes blue skies darker when converted to b/w, as I'm sure you know (I've seen your excellent work in your portfolio many times).
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 07:02:31 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Originally posted by jonpink:
They look a little small,like models to me. Nothing there to give it a sense of scale..
Also why is ther lateral darkening of the sky? |
Scale is often a problem when dealing with mountains. I don't concern myself about it too much since mountains are almost always alluded to as being BIG.
The lateral darkening of the sky was from two things: time of day and blueness of the sky. The channel mixer was set very low for the blues--in the negatives, and the reds were set quite high--beyond 100. In effect, this was like putting a red filter on the camera (which was already wearing a polarizing lens), which makes blue skies darker when converted to b/w, as I'm sure you know (I've seen your excellent work in your portfolio many times). |
Just wondered why it was lateral as I sometimes get this too :D
With mountains i really struggle to get something in to give ti scale sometimes it's nigh on impossible. I find when I am there I feel that it doesn't need anything, but when i get home unless I add something to scale it (like a foreground rock, or some people, houses etc) that it never looks as dramatic as it did when I was there.
Do you feel this?
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 07:51:07 AM · #8 |
Dramatic as hell, but suffering from lack of detail in the shadowed major portion of mountains to the right side. When you go negative on the blue slider you remove all detail from shadowed areas, which are lit only from reflected sky light. You might be able to improve this by selecting out the mountains and adding some blue back in there, and then using the hue/saturation tool if needed to desaturate the blue within that selection. You can also play with its brightness in this tool.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 07:52:15.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 07:56:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Dramatic as hell, but suffering from lack of detail in the shadowed major portion of mountains to the right side. When you go negative on the blue slider you remove all detail from shadowed areas, which are lit only from reflected sky light. You might be able to improve this by selecting out the mountains and adding some blue back in there, and then using the hue/saturation tool if needed to desaturate the blue within that selection. You can also play with its brightness in this tool.
Robt. |
You know a lot of people have this misconception about snow - the feeling that all snow should be pure white and that if it's grey it's underexposed.
In reality snow is like anything else, the shadowy parts will be grey and the bright parts near white.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:02:54 AM · #10 |
| I wanted to second what jon said, and add that it might be worthwhile to crop out the bright peaks to the right of the image. They pull the eye away from the center of the image. I think you'd have a more effective composition. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:15:06 AM · #11 |
Jon,
I'm not referring to the snow specifically. I'm well aware of the ranges of value snow can take; see my "candids" challenge entry. What I'm getting at is that the mass of the mountain that is in shadow, to the right, is utterly devoid of shadow detail or texture, because it is only provided by relected blue light, and he's cut that channel out of his image.
In general, all B/W images except high-contrast ones will benefit from careful attention to the detail in the shadow areas; this is the basic tenet of zone-system photography, and this particular image very closely emulates the "look" of a zone system image.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 08:17:32.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:33:45 AM · #12 |
| you may be right, bear, but on my monitor, i'm seeing plenty of detail in the shadows (which, considering this is 640 across and less than 140kb, is pretty incredible). i imagine that this really rocks high-res and large. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 11:27:51 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
With mountains i really struggle to get something in to give ti scale sometimes it's nigh on impossible. I find when I am there I feel that it doesn't need anything, but when i get home unless I add something to scale it (like a foreground rock, or some people, houses etc) that it never looks as dramatic as it did when I was there.
Do you feel this? |
I run into the same thing all the time. Pictures do not give the same sense of bigness that is there in real life. It seems to me that (strangely) fog occasionally will be of aid here, e.g. in a picture like this one:
Fog, somehow, makes things look "bigger".
A similar problem is how to give the impression of "vertical drop". Vertical drops look flat and unimpressive in pictures. Someone told me that the classic approach is to use boots (or skis) peeking over the edge. Yet, I would like to find a different way to show this. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 11:32:32 AM · #14 |
| Thanks everyone who posted suggestions. They were VERY helpful! I hadn't even conceived of some of your ideas when shooting. There is so much to learn!.... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/07/2026 07:02:01 AM EDT.
