| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2006 11:06:53 PM · #351 |
My shot for the vertical composition one:
 |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 01:57:24 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
My shot for the vertical composition one:
|
That's nice work! I wish some more people would weigh in with images that show how well vertical framing can wotk in the landscape. It's an important lesson. They don't have to be new pictures.
There's been a tendency here, spurred on by me, for this thread to turn into a post-processing workshop. That's because PP is absolutely integral to making flat light work well. But it wasn't my intention that this be a PP workshop.
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 02:03:00 AM · #353 |
[/quote]
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R. [/quote]
I like the post processing and ive learned a lot by watching and trying. I would like to see some discussion about composition and metering, etc. for BW landscape images at some point down the road. I know metering was covered earlier in this thread but i've always found it hard to bring out certain tones when converting from color to BW. Maybe this is directly related to PP???
Message edited by author 2006-04-26 02:03:19. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 02:27:14 AM · #354 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R. |
I like the post processing and ive learned a lot by watching and trying. I would like to see some discussion about composition and metering, etc. for BW landscape images at some point down the road. I know metering was covered earlier in this thread but i've always found it hard to bring out certain tones when converting from color to BW. Maybe this is directly related to PP??? |
Oh, we'll get to those things for sure. The query is more along the lines of whether we want to continue with the PP as we go, or is this enough of that? We're trying a basic compositionally switch right now, actually: Vertical landscapes. But nobody's biting...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 02:33:58 AM · #355 |
I haven't had time to join in (and I really need to learn about contrast masking, so I keep coming back to this thread).
But I noticed you were looking for vertical landscapes. I have a few--I really like that format!
   
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 02:58:28 AM · #356 |
I was wondering if you'd be dropping by with some verticals, LOL. Thanks. When I think "vertical landscapes" I think "nshapiro"!
R.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 03:03:20 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... There's been a tendency here, spurred on by me, for this thread to turn into a post-processing workshop. That's because PP is absolutely integral to making flat light work well. But it wasn't my intention that this be a PP workshop.
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R. |
Seeing how each aspect introduced is followed thru to full realization in PP is definitely something I want to see continue. I am however, looking forward to further enlightenment.
David
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 03:15:55 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R. |
I like the post processing and ive learned a lot by watching and trying. I would like to see some discussion about composition and metering, etc. for BW landscape images at some point down the road. I know metering was covered earlier in this thread but i've always found it hard to bring out certain tones when converting from color to BW. Maybe this is directly related to PP??? |
Oh, we'll get to those things for sure. The query is more along the lines of whether we want to continue with the PP as we go, or is this enough of that? We're trying a basic compositionally switch right now, actually: Vertical landscapes. But nobody's biting...
R. |
I enjoy the PP examples, especially when accompanied by an explanation on how it was done. I think PP is always going to come up, since as pointed out by you, it's an integral part of the whole process.
As for vertical landscapes... with any luck, tomorrow I'll have something better than the rather craptastic offering a couple pages back.
I do have a question for you regarding shot preperation. How much pre-planning do you do for a typical outing? Do you scope sites out ahead of time or just look at your watch and decide it's time to go and walk out the door with no idea what you'll be coming back with?
Thanks again. |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 03:45:23 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by error99:
I do have a question for you regarding shot preperation. How much pre-planning do you do for a typical outing? Do you scope sites out ahead of time or just look at your watch and decide it's time to go and walk out the door with no idea what you'll be coming back with? |
Many times I have a specific shot in mind and have been to the location before and am fully aware of what time of day I want to be there to make that shot. I am also watching the tide tables if it's a marsh or beach shot, and I am watching the sky always. The sky issue is problematical for two reasons; here on the Cape the weather blows by real fast most of the time, being as how we are exposed out here in the middle of the ocean, and the geography of the Cape itself also leads to dramatic changes in weather at any given tome based in WHERE on the Cape you happen to be. It can be pouring down rain in Harwich Port and sunny and cloudless in Provincetwon, a distance of 35-odd miles away. So my best-laid plans are often scuttled.
Another concern is wind. It can be very windy here, and I am reluctant to expose my camera to seashore shots in 35mph+ winds. I'll do it if something spectacular is happening, but I'll usually restrict myself to spots where I can use the car for shelter.
Nevertheless, a lot of the time shots just happen for me. I take the camera with me wherever I go, and I tend to travel early in the morning or late int he afternoon because the light's better. For example, my main market is not that far from "my" marsh, so I'll go to market at 7 AM or 5 PM, and swing by the marsh before shopping.
On days when I expect excellent weather in the morning (it's storming tonight, tomorrow morning may be great) I'll stay up all night doing stuff like this and set out before dawn and head down-cape to the national Seashore in the hopes of finding some great shots. IN my living room and in my office, I can watch the afternoon light directly. It signals to me when good things are starting to happen, the color changes. I am fortunate to live very close to some very photogenic places (my worhorse beach is a little more than 1/4 mile away) so I can hit the door running (the camera is always packed and loaded with a full battery and an empty card and the tripod lives in the car) and be shooting within 5 minutes of noticing a sudden breakout of beauty. Remember my radial sunset? That one was a keystone kops routine, I was ROARING awayin a spray of gravel and SPEEDING down beach road, desperate to get there in time.
Speaking in general, the best thing you can do is cultivate a sixth sense for light angles as they relate to you reachable environment, and have a rough plan for where to go depending on when you see good things happening. If I don't want to drive all the way down Cape, then for dawns I have the near beach, the near marsh, and Chatham Bars/Stage Harbor (but these are 12-15 minutes away). For sunsets-in-a-hurry I have the near beach, and I can be at my main marsh in 5 minues, and just a bit beyond that some beaches-under-bluffs that give me elevation.
As summer comes around, my nearby beaches become unuseable for sunsets, as the sun has moved north far enough that it is setting over land, not water: my part of the Cape is south-facing, my beach is on Nantucket Sound. So for sunsets over water I have to go across the Cape to the Bay side, or down-Cape to the National Seashore and shoot the bay side there. And in summer, we have a gazillion tourists and all sorts of restrictive parking rules, so I actually don't shoot much in the afternoon in the summer. It's just too much hassle. Dawn is ok, but I gotta be home by 9AM or I get traffic-jammed to oblivion.
Karma the Wonderdog comes along for all this, btw.
So the short answer is, I'm thinking about it all the time :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 04:10:40 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...Karma the Wonderdog comes along for all this, btw.
So the short answer is, I'm thinking about it all the time :-)
R. |
Thanks for that and give Karma a scratch behind the ear. :) |
|
|
|
04/26/2006 05:50:09 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's been a tendency here, spurred on by me, for this thread to turn into a post-processing workshop. That's because PP is absolutely integral to making flat light work well. But it wasn't my intention that this be a PP workshop.
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?
R. |
Yes, please!! I've found it very helpful to see what you're able to do to an image in PP. Many times I've looked at my edits, or another photogs in this thread, and thought, "Hey, that looks pretty good!" Then I see your edit, and it makes ours look almost dull in comparison. Being constantly exposed to the new PP skills and examples is making me more comfortable with processing, and making me bolder with it.
And as you said, it is a vital part of landscape photography, so I don't see why both demonstrations can't continue together.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2006 06:59:47 PM · #362 |
It's funny to me... I've been reading in a couple other threads the usual rabid opinions (maybe that's too strong a word, "rabid") that the skill of "getting it right in-camera" is a higher skill than the skill of massaging to perfection in post-processing.
But nobody has expressed that opinion here, even though we are taking some images and just massaging the hell out of them.
It's an interesting philosophical conundrum, really: if we were working in a studio, we could make the argument that perfection in lighting and setup is attainable and post-processing is a way of compensating for failures in shooting. I don't make that argument myself, but it could be made.
But in the landscape we have so little control. We are where we are, when we are, and that's an end of it. In the best of all possible worlds we could all be Ansels, and make note of a time and date and place and return repeatedly over the years seeking the elusive "perfect capture", but in reality we don't have that luxury.
So I believe that what I'm teaching here is very valuable, in that it enables people to make the best of what they find when they find it.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 12:59:07 AM · #363 |
WOW! I've just completed reading this thread and have learned SO MUCH! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Somehow I need to figure out a way around the steps involved in contrast masking as Ctrl-Alt-Tilde doesn't seem to work in PS Elements 3 to adjust the highlights and shadows. Any ideas on that?
I'm so inspired by all that I've read here. Although I've done a few landscapes that I actually liked, they all seem(ed) to lack that POP that I was looking for. I'm definitely interested in learning more about PP in landscapes or anything else. I'm also interested in learning more about landscape composition.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 01:06:54 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by amandak:
WOW! I've just completed reading this thread and have learned SO MUCH! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Somehow I need to figure out a way around the steps involved in contrast masking as Ctrl-Alt-Tilde doesn't seem to work in PS Elements 3 to adjust the highlights and shadows. Any ideas on that?
I'm so inspired by all that I've read here. Although I've done a few landscapes that I actually liked, they all seem(ed) to lack that POP that I was looking for. I'm definitely interested in learning more about PP in landscapes or anything else. I'm also interested in learning more about landscape composition.
Thanks! |
Can anyone here answer Amanda's question? I have no experience with Elements. Thanks for the kind words.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 02:04:48 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by amandak:
... Somehow I need to figure out a way around the steps involved in contrast masking as Ctrl-Alt-Tilde doesn't seem to work in PS Elements 3 to adjust the highlights and shadows. Any ideas on that? ... |
Can anyone here answer Amanda's question? I have no experience with Elements. ...
R. |
The short answer is that there is not an exact alternative.
The longer answer (and explaination of why) is in what the Ctrl-Alt-~ combination is actually creating a selection from a mask of the lighter half of the Lightness channel in Lab color mode. PSE does not have Lab color mode, so no shortcut either.
The even longer answer (and possible work-around) is that it may be possible to approximate the results by making a mask of the lighter half of a desaturated version of the image. I don't know the exact steps needed, but it seems obvious it would not be as easy as Ctrl-Alt-~ -- although an action will likely help out there.
I'll see if I can come up with the exact steps later when I have a bit more time.
David
Message edited by author 2006-04-27 02:06:49.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 06:04:26 AM · #366 |
Ok, an alternative method for contrast masking that I think will work in PSE. I tried downloading the trial from Adobe's website, but wouldn't run for me, so I am unable to try it.
1 - duplicate the background layer and name it 'Luminosity'.
2 - create a new, empty layer beneath 'Luminosity'.
3 - set the blending mode of 'Luminosity' to Luminosity.
4 - select 'Luminosity' and merge down [Ctrl-E].
5 - select and copy the resulting layer [Ctrl-A to select, Ctrl-C to copy].
6 - create a new channel and name it 'luminosity'.
7 - select the channel 'luminosity' and paste the 'Luminosity' layer onto it [Ctrl-V].
8 - Delete the 'Luminosity' layer (not channel!) as it is no longer needed.
9 - load the 'luminosity' channel as a selection [menu Selection/Load Selection and select 'luminosity' as the source channel].
10 - select the background layer and create a new layer from the selection [Ctrl-J] and name it 'Highlights'.
11 - load the 'luminosity' channel as a selection [same as step 9].
12 - invert the selection [Ctrl-Shft-I].
13 - select the background layer and create a new layer from the selection [Ctrl-J] and name it 'Shadows'.
At this point there are two layers, 'Highlights' and 'Shadows', which can then be blended with either Multiply or Screen as per Robert's earlier instructions. Note that the 'luminosity' channel created is not a pixel-perfect duplication of the 'lightness' channel in the Lab color space -- but it should be close enough for these purposes.
Hopefully the above works. The comparisons I saw for PSE say it allows alpha channels (which is one thing I was worried about) so I assummed that was to allow selections to be saved and loaded. The one thing I'm worried about now is the comparison said there was no channels pallette, so I'm not sure if steps 6 and 7 are possible. If not, Jay Arraich has a PDF of a sample chapter from his book that he says details a way to make a layer mask (zipped pdf here) -- again, I couldn't test any of it without being able to load and run elements, so I can only hope it works.
David
Message edited by author 2006-04-27 07:31:59.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 07:30:16 AM · #367 |
| Thanks, David! Elements does not have channels, either, but I may be able to work around it by using GIMP, which *does* have them. I appreciate you researching my question. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 07:33:39 AM · #368 |
Gimp will certainly be able to do the above, but look at the pdf I just added to my post above -- the author says it's a way to create masks from layers.
David
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 07:42:13 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations? |
The PP stuff is really useful, but I'd like to hear some more about the different types of light.
For example, the quality of light and how this changes at different times of the day. How different colours of light work in different scenarios. And clear/direct sunlight versus overcast/hazy versus conditions like storm clouds. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 09:38:24 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by amandak:
Somehow I need to figure out a way around the steps involved in contrast masking as Ctrl-Alt-Tilde doesn't seem to work in PS Elements 3 to adjust the highlights and shadows. Any ideas on that?
|
Can anyone here answer Amanda's question? I have no experience with Elements. Thanks for the kind words.
R. |
I have PSE4 and have yet to find a way to do contrast masking as explained here. I've been using PS5 for that. I'll check out that PDF file David.C linked to later today.
I like PS5, but, have been using PSE4 for the save for web function. The one thing I DON'T like about PS5 (besides no save for web) is lack of multiple undo's. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 09:49:09 AM · #371 |
It was a nice foggy morning this am. Here is a shot for the vertical portion of this lesson. I like it better than the one a couple pages back... by a lot. :)
I'm still floored by how much detail can be had I wouldn't have thought was there by contrast masking.
EDIT: Forgot the steps used... 2 passes of contrast masking. levels. curves. hue/sat - boosted yellows and reds a bit. usm. save for web.
Message edited by author 2006-04-27 11:42:57. |
|
|
|
04/27/2006 11:51:58 AM · #372 |
Here's a new post to DPC of a vertical from my December Zermatt shots.
This one just got POTD today on Digital Image Cafe.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 01:14:46 PM · #373 |
David C: Thanks for all that information. It makes my head spin, LOL. I'm not even gonna attempt to "verify" any of it. Your equation of contast masking to the channels in LAB is fascinating to me. I'm not much of a one for seeking out the underlying mechanisms of things, being more of a practical, hands-on guy. In any case, hopefully your info will be useful to the Elements users.
The important thing here is to realize that this "contrast masking" is of use primarily in situations where we want to monkey seriously with the dynamic range of our image, and that's only a small portion of what we shoot, really: I use it quite a lot because it's "there" for me and I find it simple, but in the majority of cases landscapes respond well to levels and curves only. Often to levels only, for that matter.
The fact that we have been emphasizing it so much recently in this thread is due to two things: people are interested in it, and it produces remarkable results in shots that are shot in extremely flat light as well as in shot with too much contrast. In other words, it's a good technique for "extremes" of the dynamic range.
Nshapiro: Thanks for posting that, and congrats on POTD. It's a powerful composition, and it shows one of the great strengths of the "vertical landscape". I'm not going to name that strength, because in the next post I am going to ask some questions.
Error99: Thnaks for your samples as well. You've hit the nail on the head re: the primary benefit of contrast masking (or very careful curves work) — there's a LOT of detail at the extremes of a properly exposed image that can be recovered. As for the images themselves, see my note to nshapiro above; in your case, you've actually introduced a "flaw" in your cropping that I'm not going to mention pending the responses to the next post.
Johonan: We began the thread with extensive discussion of different kinds of light, and then followed up with a practical lesson on using "flat light" which, although rarely the optimum light for landscapes, is frequently unavoidable. We'll be discussing light more shortly, but for now I am on a compositional track.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 01:24:26 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by error99:
I do have a question for you regarding shot preperation. How much pre-planning do you do for a typical outing? Do you scope sites out ahead of time or just look at your watch and decide it's time to go and walk out the door with no idea what you'll be coming back with? |
I like landscape photography a lot so I'd like to followup Robert's comments with some of my own...
1-Plan your outings around known or expected lighting conditions and weather for a site.
2-When possible return to the same site numerous times over many years and during different seasons and weather.
3-Most important of all, preplan your shots but take what nature offers.
1-Plan your outings around known or expected lighting conditions and weather.
Everyone knows that early morning (from sunrise) and late afternoon lighting (through sunset) is generally best. But that is not true for all landscapes. It is good to understand these things BEFORE you make a trip. For example, The Chapel of the Holy Cross in Sedona, Arizona is best captured in the morning and Cathedral Rock in Sedona is best photographed in late afternoon. Guess what, I plan my trips there around that. Some sites, like the world famous Antelope Canyon in Page, Arizona is best photographed around noon because that is when the sun best penetrates into the incredibly narrow canyon. The Grand Canyon works for almost any time of day because of its broad expanses and flat panoramic views. When I drive to Monument Valley I leave at 11PM the night before so I can arrive early enough to locate and setup for a sunrise picture.
The main point is this... every landscape or vista has its own unique characteristices or orientation that makes some times during the day better for photography than others. If you can find out what it is and adjust your timing accordingly you increase your chances for a great capture. Of course, weather can ruin the opportunity or make it incredible beyond imagination. Weather is the great X-factor in landscape photography.
2-When possible return to the same site numerous times over many years and during different seasons and weather
Though not always possible it is great when you can. Landscapes take on different personalities under different lighting and weather conditions. The more often you visit a site the higher your probablity of capturing those personality nuances.
3-Most important of all, preplan your shots but take what nature offers.
Countless times I've went to take pictures with a specific objective and goal in mind but came home to find the best pictures I got were unexpected and unimagined before I left. Be flexible. If you photograph landscapes, mother nature has a way of surprising you. She presents you with incredible yet unexpected photo opportunities on every trip. They do not necessarily fit into your narrow pre-concieved ideal when you set out. The trick is to remain aware, see what photo opportunities are being presented by nature, and capturing them as best you can.
My best pictures are ones I did not know I was going to take before I went out.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2006 01:33:41 PM · #375 |
Summary and Discussion: "Vertical Landscapes"
You were asked to bring some vertically-framed landscape shots to the table here, and I thank those of you who responded. The discussion never really happened, though. So I'd like to see some discussion. Remember our assignment:
*******************
Free Study VERTICAL Landscape Assignment:
It's time to have a little fun; step outside the box, use any sort of light you want, any sort of compositional device you wish, as long as the shot is done in the vertical orientation like those above. Please make a landscape shot that has a REASON for being vertical; don't be arbitrary, make it a shot we look at and say "Yeah! That WORKS as a vertical! Good Eye!"
********************
It should be fairly clear, from seeing the examples posted, that "vertical landscapes" are very well-suited for doing one particular thing. (It's not that they can't do other things, but there's one area they really shine in); I'd like to see you people discover that for yourselves if you can, using some examples that have been posted here to illustrate the point.
Remember the idea was to make shots that had a REASON for being vertical. There's a reason most landscape shots are horizontal (anyone think they know what it is?) and there's a particularly good reason to break out of horizontal for certain shots, and that's what I'm looking to emphasize here.
So let's discuss, please.
As a bit of advanced warning, our next assignment will be compositional in nature: we will be exploring the compositional device called "leading lines". PLease do NOT post examples of leading lines here until I have posted the preliminary discussion and assignment, but I'm letting you know it's coming in case some of y'all are shooting in the meanwhile :-)
Okay, let's have it. Talk about "vertical landscapes", their strengths and weaknesses, whatever you've been able to glean by looking at these shots. Just for two talking points among the latest posts, why is nshapiro's Zermatt shot a very good use of the vertical, and what is the "weakness" I am alluding to in Error99's crop? Why is that weakness multiplied, so to speak, in the vertical orientation?
But don't restrict yourselves to just these two shots.
Discussion is open. You do not have to have been a participant in the thread thus far to render an opinion now. If you've been following along, and have a thought, let's hear it.
Robt.
|
|
