Dogwood Galore +2rp
by Lon Overacker
I just recently made a comment about slot canyon images being "a dime a dozen." Well, the same could be made for dogwoods and many other subject that we see here on a daily basis. But gall-darnit, they're just beautiful and waiting to be photographed!
The dogwoods were about the best we had seen in Yosemite last month - and the photographers and workshops were there chasing them. I've been watching this tree over the years, but never catching it in the best light. When we arrived here it was late in the day, but the sun was still beating pretty hard on the water and it was too harsh. But knowing the sun would be setting shortly I decided to set up and wait anyway. And wait. And when there is 0 wind, the wait is usually worth it. I waited until the harshness of the light on the river had dwindled some and the last touches of light were hitting the tree. Click.
Full disclosure. Some minor cloning to remove an errant bloom to the upper left part of the tree and two small hanging empty twigs at the bottom of the tree. This is also about an 80% crop of the original. I wasn't very close to the dogwood.
Curious about one thing, and that's the color/sat of the water. I'm guessing this is true for a lot of you, but try as I might to remember exactly how things looked at the time, I find it hard in processing to render color as I remembered it. And at least for me, I toss out the notion of "that's what the film saw" or "that's straight out of the camera." Neither of those examples are what our eyes saw. Your thoughts? The blue of course is reflected/absorbed blue sky.
4x5, Nikkor 450mm monster lens, Astia 100F, f/32 @ 1/2s
Thanks!
Lon
Comments
43 commentsAlways enjoy your images...
Finally, is this the tree that west of the Pohono bridge about half way to the Hwy 140/120 split? I have tried photographing this tree with out nearly as much success.
Lon
As far as the color and saturation goes, I agree 100% with what you said. Lenses, film and sensors are just mechanical approximations of whatever "reality" sticks in our minds. Especially in dim light, cameras capture more color than our eyes do, and it's very tempting to accept the eye-popping camera images as reality. The water I see in your processing seems real to me, even though I was not there. I also have to say that your shutter speed helps with that sense of reality. Neither super-fast "freezing" of moving water, nor super-long blurring of water into featureless fog are close to what I perceive. This image conveys both the motion and the texture of the water.
aF
I like this just the way it is but can’t help wondering what it would look like if the light on the foliage was warmed a bit to make more of a contrast with the cool blue water.
Confession: I just screen shot the photo and warmed the whole pic just a bit in ACR. The blue water was still blue but the foliage popped nicely. Keeping in mind that the laptop I am working on has a bluish tint to it so my results and thoughts may be totally irrelevant.
no complaints! Good eye!
Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI
Anyway, I'd like to incorporate the suggestions, but not sure how soon or if I'll get to post another version.
thanks for the observations and suggestions.
And no worries Bill! In fact there's something that bothers me too and I didn't want to mention it for fear of putting something in people's minds before they commented..... But I worked on this for the longest time and I never noticed this. There isn't a single blossom on this tree in full bloom! They're mostly all halfway closed up. I don't recall if dogwoods do that at night, say like poppies OR if the blossoms are new or old. anyway, they're certainly not the prettiest of blossoms, maybe that's what is not so appealing. The saving grace though I think is the water and the last light of sun hitting the tree/blossoms.
Thanks everyone!
Lon
Astia....what dat stuff?..
Ed
Anyway, this may or may not be the final version, but following is my repost and after that the original scan. The only thing done to that one is resize/sharpen for the web.
thanks again everyone, I really appreciate the feedback.
Lon
edit, I also wanted to mention and disclose the use of not 1, but 2 glow layers. My very first layer (after spotting, cloning and cropping) was to duplicate the bg layer, convert to smart object, then add Gaussian blur, then drop the opacity to 20%. What this did was take the edge off the dogwood leaves and branches in terms of sharpness and contrast; basically a very watered down Orton technique. Later on I applied Tony Kuyper's "Smart Glow" also at a very weak 20% opacity which added just a wee bit more of contrast. Hopefully, and at least to me, if you compare that to the unprocessed scan, there isn't a huge difference. I think of it as refinement.
You can see the crop and the various little twigs and such where I did the cloning. The crop was basically to remove the specular highlight area in the LRC.
Thanks again!
Lon
ps. And Paul, YES, this was Astia. I had it loaded in the holder and sat in my bag since before last November. Pretty shocked actually this came out!
Thanks for sharing it Lon.
Overall, a very solid (your standards) image, and I enjoy it very much.
Thanks Harry! EXACTLY. Yes, I could do different and more diverse locations, but this is so true. By returning to the same place, it becomes a challenge and one is forced to find and see things in new and different ways. More practically though, I'm limited really to 3, maybe 4 multi-day outings and so I usually end up where I get the biggest bang for the buck! Thanks for the comment and observation.
Lon
You’re not alone. Sometimes I get all choked up when I think about how I wish I could be out there more.
John
aF
Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI
Dogwood images may be "a dime a dozen", but your work here has elevated it to super star status
Very nice!
Peter
Chris
After you cut the dogwood branch, Jason did a fine job holding it still over the water.
Edit: just saw the second version and it is just what I had hoped for. Great job!