Dahlia Sunrise Redux

Gallery: Man & NaturePosted August 25, 20052,246 views21 comments

NOTE: My final edited version of this image is available to see here. Improvements include more detail in the middle ground line of trees, warming of the tones in the fg.

This image is a reshoot of my previously posted image. While getting eaten by the mosquitos (yep, forgot to bring the repellant) I setup my equipment to correct the problems in the previous shoot:

1. Shoot at ISO 100 this time instead of ISO 800.
2. Eliminate the lens flare that was a problem in the previous image (used a lens hood, experimented at different f-stops).

I also decided to go landscape aspect this time so that I could include Mt. Hood visible on the RHS in this image.

So, I am very interested in what people think about this image versus the previous one. All comments appreciated!

Canon 20D, 70-200mm f4L @ 84mm, ISO 100, blend of 2 shots

FG: 3.2 seconds @ f32
BG: 1/125 seconds @ f16

PSCS: curves adjustment on both images, very slight crop after correcting slight CCW rotation.

Comments

21 comments

Comment posted by Kent Newton on August 25, 2005 at 1:42 PM

Geoff,

The previous image was good, but I think this one is outstanding.

I prefer the landscape cropping, and the inclusion of Mt. Hood really sends this one over the top.

Registered on May 22, 2005, 308 Posts, 761 Comments

Comment posted by Julia Flanagan on August 25, 2005 at 5:49 PM

Geoff,
I think this one is far superior. The fg flowers are in sharp focus, the light balance is great, colors great, and the horizon tree line and mountain more interesting. Great job!

Julie

Registered on November 13, 2003, 59 Posts, 986 Comments

Comment posted by Arthur Sevestre on August 25, 2005 at 6:21 PM

The composition of this one is much stronger compared to the first one I think. I really like that. The combination of fore- and background looks good, even with the division on the vertical half (sometimes that does work quite well). However, I think the difference in light temperature and brightness between the fore- and background is a bit too much. While the mountain and sky are really really warm, the foreground is a great deal cooler, and the brightest tones in the foreground are brighter than the ones in the sky. In fact, the foreground looks almost as if it was shot during a somewhat overcast day instead of during a sunset. Don't get me wrong, the colours of the flowers are lovely, but the layers just don't look natural together to me. I think it might be quite nice if the foreground would be warmer, and a bit darker too. It would look more natural I think. Maybe something worth trying?

Cheers!

Registered on November 1, 2003, 275 Posts, 888 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 25, 2005 at 6:27 PM

Thanks for the opinions - I really do appreciate it!

Art - I've actually toned down the light level in the fg since posting this image, so your comment there was right on. Although I remember (it was just this morning so my memory hasn't faded too much yet...) the warm/cool appearance of the flowers to be much like you see it here I will play around a bit with the white balance in the flower field to see how it looks. Thanks!

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Alice Scoggins on August 25, 2005 at 6:45 PM

This is fantastic! What a wonderful range of colors. I'm interested in the comment about the foreground/background brightness. I didn't notice it until mentioned. If you adjust your image further I would be interested in seeing it as a comment. This is a perfect example of fine-tuning an image that we can all learn by! The only thing that I noticed that seems a little out of place is the bluish strip of grass between the flowers and the trees. I guess that's the "cooler" tone that was mentioned.

Registered on February 21, 2005, 430 Posts, 5959 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 25, 2005 at 10:02 PM

I have done some additional work on the image. As per Art's suggestion, I have toned down the fg and warmed it up also. I was also able to "eke" out some additional detail in the line of trees in the middle ground.

The edited image may be viewed here.

BTW, thanks Alice for your time in viewing and commenting!

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Ned Fenimore on August 25, 2005 at 11:38 PM

Sweet! It looks like you had the best idea this particular morning..!

Registered on November 1, 2003, 467 Posts, 2803 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 25, 2005 at 11:50 PM

Hehe, Ned, when we were out there that morning, you and Phil went to photograph flowers but I told you guys that I was an opportunist. So, I see this scene and I redirected my efforts. Did you and Phil notice me doing this?

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Philip Kirkham on August 26, 2005 at 4:08 AM

Beautiful compositiom, it's a stunner.
Phil

Registered on October 9, 2004, 63 Posts, 153 Comments

Comment posted by David Bostock on August 26, 2005 at 8:30 PM

Wow, Geoff, this is awesome. Going back and reshooting always helps me improve my shot. This is well done. No flare, and the hint of Mt. Hood adds nicely. I love the terrific colors in the foreground. Simply superb.

Registered on November 1, 2003, 90 Posts, 2778 Comments

Comment posted by Patrick McCormick on August 26, 2005 at 10:09 PM

Hi Geoff,

Superb shot -- as others have said, you really nailed the composition on this one!
Thanks for sharing!

Registered on December 28, 2004, 27 Posts, 76 Comments

Comment posted by Kent Staubus on August 27, 2005 at 9:16 PM

A great example of visualizing a shot and working it until you get it right!

Very, very nice.

Kent in SD

Registered on November 11, 2003, 121 Posts, 2098 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 27, 2005 at 11:02 PM

Thanks Philip, David, Patrick, and Kent! This was one of those shots that was really pleasing to work at getting and then to translate into something enjoyable for people to view. I'm not done yet, as I hope in the next week or so to get a similar image but with some nice cumulus clouds sailing through the sky...

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Rick Lundh on August 28, 2005 at 3:11 PM

Geoff,
This is the first I saw of this comp you've been working on...and although not to steal your thunder...It was obvious that great minds think alike, as Phil, David F. and myself shot this near exact conditions and comp just yesterday. I haven't worked mine yet, but I have to say that I really like the lighting and comp with Mt Hood in the BG, the flowers really pop here, and that's what draws the eye in. I would like to see a little more work done on the blend between the field and the stand of trees, but again as is...is pretty dern nice! You make me want to process mine now...I hope it turns out half as good as this.

Registered on April 28, 2004, 774 Posts, 4351 Comments

Comment posted by Jerry Greer on August 28, 2005 at 5:04 PM

This image does not look natural (I do love the idea and the comp is very pleasing). Looks like a composite for sure! I think that it's due to the very dark background trees with the field of flowers being way too bright. The foreground needs to come down a bit and the dark trees need more detail. This will give the overall image a more conheasive feel.

Registered on November 1, 2003, 404 Posts, 1977 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on August 28, 2005 at 7:13 PM

Thanks for your comments, Rick and Jerry.

Jerry - I've actually already done the work involved for the suggestions you've made. However, I do want to say that visually, to the naked eye, the scene was very much one of fairly bright fg appearance. Because of the mid-range telephoto being used, what you see of sky is only a very small portion of the sky, most of which was blue and fairly brightly lit.

Rick - I knew that I wouldn't be the only one getting this comp once I'd taken it and posted it...

It'll be interesting to see what you come up with.

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Rick Lundh on August 28, 2005 at 8:55 PM

I'll second what Geoff said about the forground being oddly brighter, also occurred in my images...

Registered on April 28, 2004, 774 Posts, 4351 Comments

Comment posted by Curtis Knight on August 29, 2005 at 4:34 PM

Holy cow Geoff!!! Congrats on a well-deserved EP! This is freakin' gorgeous!

Registered on October 28, 2004, 53 Posts, 468 Comments

Comment posted by Jeffrey Sipress on September 4, 2005 at 1:42 AM

While quite dramatic, it appears unreal. These lighting conditions would never exist together. It's like two images taken at different times of day merged. Just doesn't connect with my brain. The final edited one also has the most unreal middleground.

Registered on February 17, 2004, 236 Posts, 1197 Comments

Comment posted by Geoff Shapiro on September 4, 2005 at 2:05 AM

Hi Jeff - I appreciate that you took the time to look at, analyze, and comment about my photo. I do agree with you on the final edited version which I've since edited over again to tone down once again the middle ground - the link will point to the new image soon. However, the lighting conditions were such that the fg field of flowers was actually appearing much brighter to the eye than you would imagine given the brightness of the small area of sky you see in the image. As I'd mentioned in a previous response, the remainder of sky was pretty brightly lit blue.

Registered on July 29, 2004, 73 Posts, 433 Comments

Comment posted by Michelle C. Parent on September 6, 2005 at 10:46 AM

Geoff,
Congrats on the EP! This is lovely! I really love those colors.

Registered on June 23, 2004, 453 Posts, 5551 Comments