This is version II of a scene I've tried to capture on two differnt trips (this one in fall 2006, the previous one a few years earlier). Let me know what you think about this one, and I'll post the other tomorrow. I really appreciate your comments. Thanks. (Pentax 645nii, 45-85 zoom, polarizer, Velvia)
Sorry but it looks like the sky is almost from a different shot. I think it has been edited to drastically compared to the granite. Comp is nice but that sky is really saying something to me differently than what the rest of the shot is.
I see what you mean. The foreground is cold and shady, while the sky is warmer and glowing. Yes? I opened up the foreground about 1/3 stop and increased the density in the sky about 1/3 stop, but it looks darn close to the transparency. Uhm...I suspect you'll gasp at the next one, but I'll post it anyways. Thanks.
You can add it on to this thread for comparison, Ian. I too was baffled when I first opened this one. There isn't any way Velvia was handling that kind of dynamic range. The cliffs in shadow are easily as light as the brightest portions of sky, which I'd estimate would account for 5-7 stops of exposure differential. I'd say some reworking is in order, but I really do like the foreground elements leading the eye out towards the distant pastel hues.
The transparency has a darker foreground and a lighter sky (the only way I could retain detail in both sky and foreground without a grad). Should I open up the sky?
Thanks Mark, I totally agree. That might be the ultimate problem. A different angle of light at a different time of year might be the solution to separating the boulders. I'm still going to try Marc and John's recommendations and see how it works out.
Discussion
8 replies