Gorgeous...I am curious where it is exactly...I know where the Collegiate Peaks are, but wondering where this place is. Also, I still take slides (can't afford to upgrade to digital at the moment), and am always curious as to how much is done in photoshop to make the photos on this site look so good! Is this what it looked like on your LCD in camera right after you took the photo besides making it a panorama? Color, sharpness, etc... ?
The shot is from the Harrison Flat towards the Three Apostles. You would take Forest Road 390 up to the wilderness are boundary and hike up the remaining distance. Forest Road 390 is the access to Huron Peak and turns off of Hwy 24 at Clear Creek Res.
... a night that I won't soon forget. Thanks everyone!
Cynthia, I'll take a stab at answering your question, as I was once in your shoes - shooting slides long ago. And I understand the suspicions of "Photoshop magic".
Photoshop is only a tool. The process of "developing" images is in our hands now. Instead of running film through a complicated machine, we run our images through software. But neither process makes a good photo, in my opinion. (Sure, some try. And, the dynamic range of digital capture vs. slide film is another discussion.) I personally prefer to spend as little time in PS as possible. Many who post here feel the same way, which is why I suspect you see a lot of solid imagery here. Let me be a little wordy in the background info for this particular photo, so you can know why it's good.
I used my 24mm tse lens and the shift feature to capture two exposures that cover the panoramic view. Colors, sharpness, etc. were determined by camera settings. Then, I use Photoshop to bring my two exposures together. I cloned out some dust spots. I double processed to control the dynamic range from sky to darker mountains to reflection. And then used a luminosity mask to restore some contrast, without blocking out the shadows. A simple curves adjustment was all that was needed once the mask was applied. Convert to sRGB. And then I used the "Adamus" sharpening technique for final web presentation.
But the 10 minutes of PS work that I used did not make this a good photo - I like to believe. It was the countless hours of research, backpacking, exploring, studying conditions, deciding where to stand and then finally composing the shot that produced this good photo - and any good photo.
How was I able to make this particular photo look so good? Well, driving up a rough 4WD road that will chew up most cars ... hauling a 45-lb pack up a steep slope to camp in a high alpine basin ... studying this place very carefully for several days, over separate trips ... waiting around for three days on this trip for spectacular light, crouching in my tent through several thunderstorms for much of that time ... checking various forums for weeks, to keep an eye on the area's snow conditions ... standing by my tripod in one spot for two hours and then enjoying a measure of incredible luck in having the clouds break just at the last light of sunset faded.
Yes, this photo was exactly what I saw. In fact, it's only a small portion of what I saw and a feeble attempt at trying to capture one of the finest sunsets I've ever seen. And this type of work goes into nearly every photograph I make.
Judging from your galleries, you know how to find good light. Whenever you go digital, nothing will change - when it comes to the important steps in making a good photograph. You'll simply be surprised at how much more flexibility digital technology affords than slide film (in terms of capturing what you see).
(And I only look at my LCD histogram. I don't try to judge an image based upon the LCD view.)
Stunning image. I have an itch to get out. Thanks for posting.
Posted by Doug Andrews on June 18, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Just beautiful Jesse. Would love to go there, but it sounds from your description that this is not a dayhike unless one is just a machine when it comes to hiking (which I ain't).
Thank you Jesse...though I don't understand the PS jargon...yet...I believe I understand what you mean. I like the simplicity of film...stick it in and do your best at the moment to get the shot...and hope. I'm a bit intimidated by the technology...and I like to be true to the moment captured...otherwise it takes away the meaning of the photo in my opinion...though I'm very aware that putting filters on a camera, and even the choice of film in a way is "altering" to compensate for slide film's lack of versatility...but that lack gives me my guidlines as to how to proceed to take the photo...so digital with it's computer component of "developing" grants more options, and I hope when I switch that I will be able use PS "truthfully."
Also, thank you for going into the effort and patience it took to get the photo...you may have noticed the big discussion on "beefy equipment" and "talent"...but it's also about patience and preparedness, which is part of every art...nature may present itself to us...but it's up to us to interpret it, again a part of ever art form.
Simply stunning, Jesse. BTW, congrats on having the credit on the banner image of the new RMNP park map!
Cynthia, if you do your own film processing, or you expect the most out of your professional lab when doing developing, then that process covers some of the work digital camera users do in PhotoShop. B&W masters used many of these tricks long before Adobe ever came up with them: UnSharp Masking, Contrast Masking, dodging and burning, spot removal - all of these came from traditional darkroom technique. Jesse uses (as do most of us digital users) some new techniques that substitute to some extent for filter use in film cameras (the double-processing replaces a neutral grad filter, for example), but what he describes could be performed (with much care) almost entirely by a patient darkroom expert and a couple of transparencies. Digital photography would be a different medium, except that the basic skills of taking a stunning image - "seeing" the landscape, making the effort, and having the patience - are all the same, and the equipment has been made almost identical for ease of use and the interoperability of lenses.
Well this is just stunning. Beautiful image Jesse. Thanks for your comments about the effort involved in making this image. Aside from the physical effort and the technical know-how, I believe that getting more and more familiar with a place often leads to better images, and this is a perfect example. This will be one of those images that I never get tired of looking at.
Fabulous Jesse even if it is a fake image. Your hard work certainly paid off!
Posted by Joshua Hardin on June 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Nice job Jesse. Harrison Flat has certainly been good to you. This shot ranks up there with the "star" image I remember you took near this place. Your hard work has paid off.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Great shot, Jesse. Beautiful color. Hopefully, I'll have something of mine to share from the trip. Thanks again for letting me tag along. Awesome place.
I'm impressed that you got the clouds, they disappeared pretty quickly. Was this taken before I got up there?
Posted by Jesse Speer on June 19, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Thanks again everyone. Even you Erik.
Paul, I LOVE the 24mm TSE. First time using it. Sharp lens. I really look forward to putting it to work when alpine wildflower season hits. And the "shift" panos are great. Couldn't be an easier stitch.
Yeah Kalin, this was captured Friday night. I didn't get much Saturday evening. Hey, your sherpa son really impressed me! I want to hire him. Sorry we had to fly out so fast. I barely made it for father's day festivities.
Photoshop is only a tool. The process of "developing" images is in our hands now. Instead of running film through a complicated machine, we run our images through software.
THAT is the explanation I've been searching for, finally! Great way to phrase that. We're still doing the same techniques, it's just a whole lot easier to dodge a shadowed foothill on a PC than in a wet darkroom. Thank you Jesse for that comment. It may show up in some of our signatures.
Discussion
35 repliesCanon 5d + 24mm tse + shift used to created a pano
Cynthia Spence
www.geolightphoto.com
Stunning shot Jesse! This (and the high price of gas
Tremendous image man!
Cynthia, I'll take a stab at answering your question, as I was once in your shoes - shooting slides long ago. And I understand the suspicions of "Photoshop magic".
Photoshop is only a tool. The process of "developing" images is in our hands now. Instead of running film through a complicated machine, we run our images through software. But neither process makes a good photo, in my opinion. (Sure, some try. And, the dynamic range of digital capture vs. slide film is another discussion.) I personally prefer to spend as little time in PS as possible. Many who post here feel the same way, which is why I suspect you see a lot of solid imagery here. Let me be a little wordy in the background info for this particular photo, so you can know why it's good.
I used my 24mm tse lens and the shift feature to capture two exposures that cover the panoramic view. Colors, sharpness, etc. were determined by camera settings. Then, I use Photoshop to bring my two exposures together. I cloned out some dust spots. I double processed to control the dynamic range from sky to darker mountains to reflection. And then used a luminosity mask to restore some contrast, without blocking out the shadows. A simple curves adjustment was all that was needed once the mask was applied. Convert to sRGB. And then I used the "Adamus" sharpening technique for final web presentation.
But the 10 minutes of PS work that I used did not make this a good photo - I like to believe. It was the countless hours of research, backpacking, exploring, studying conditions, deciding where to stand and then finally composing the shot that produced this good photo - and any good photo.
How was I able to make this particular photo look so good? Well, driving up a rough 4WD road that will chew up most cars ... hauling a 45-lb pack up a steep slope to camp in a high alpine basin ... studying this place very carefully for several days, over separate trips ... waiting around for three days on this trip for spectacular light, crouching in my tent through several thunderstorms for much of that time ... checking various forums for weeks, to keep an eye on the area's snow conditions ... standing by my tripod in one spot for two hours and then enjoying a measure of incredible luck in having the clouds break just at the last light of sunset faded.
Yes, this photo was exactly what I saw. In fact, it's only a small portion of what I saw and a feeble attempt at trying to capture one of the finest sunsets I've ever seen. And this type of work goes into nearly every photograph I make.
Judging from your galleries, you know how to find good light. Whenever you go digital, nothing will change - when it comes to the important steps in making a good photograph. You'll simply be surprised at how much more flexibility digital technology affords than slide film (in terms of capturing what you see).
(And I only look at my LCD histogram. I don't try to judge an image based upon the LCD view.)
Also, thank you for going into the effort and patience it took to get the photo...you may have noticed the big discussion on "beefy equipment" and "talent"...but it's also about patience and preparedness, which is part of every art...nature may present itself to us...but it's up to us to interpret it, again a part of ever art form.
Cynthia Spence
Cynthia, if you do your own film processing, or you expect the most out of your professional lab when doing developing, then that process covers some of the work digital camera users do in PhotoShop. B&W masters used many of these tricks long before Adobe ever came up with them: UnSharp Masking, Contrast Masking, dodging and burning, spot removal - all of these came from traditional darkroom technique. Jesse uses (as do most of us digital users) some new techniques that substitute to some extent for filter use in film cameras (the double-processing replaces a neutral grad filter, for example), but what he describes could be performed (with much care) almost entirely by a patient darkroom expert and a couple of transparencies. Digital photography would be a different medium, except that the basic skills of taking a stunning image - "seeing" the landscape, making the effort, and having the patience - are all the same, and the equipment has been made almost identical for ease of use and the interoperability of lenses.
John
This is really wonderful. Typical JS stuff.
RichieV
I'm impressed that you got the clouds, they disappeared pretty quickly. Was this taken before I got up there?
Paul, I LOVE the 24mm TSE. First time using it. Sharp lens. I really look forward to putting it to work when alpine wildflower season hits. And the "shift" panos are great. Couldn't be an easier stitch.
Yeah Kalin, this was captured Friday night. I didn't get much Saturday evening. Hey, your sherpa son really impressed me! I want to hire him. Sorry we had to fly out so fast. I barely made it for father's day festivities.
Wow! Tremendous color and sharpness!
I think your 10 minutes in photoshop would take me half a day.
THAT is the explanation I've been searching for, finally! Great way to phrase that. We're still doing the same techniques, it's just a whole lot easier to dodge a shadowed foothill on a PC than in a wet darkroom. Thank you Jesse for that comment. It may show up in some of our signatures.
Oh, the image... simply gorgeous!