Posted by John De Bord on July 19, 2007 at 7:59 AM
Every now and then we run upon a photographer whose work is just, well, mind boggling. Meet Ingmar Wesemann aka Wingmar on deviantArt http://wingmar.deviantart.com/ Now what I am wondering is this, I have NEVER seen images that are so clear in my entire life, ever. I know he shoots with a Canon 5d and uses mostly primes, but still, how on earth is he getting this type of clarity!?!???! The lighting I can understand, but the clarity, is unreal! Here are some sample images about what I am referring to: (click thumbnail for full size on page)
One thing he might be doing is stitching several shots together to create the final image. Huge files, but you get incredible detail. Max Lyons, the guy who wrote PTAssembler, has some very nice examples of this at http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/. I know Grant Collier has done some work in this area also.
John, the key is clean Swiss mountain air!!!! He has nice work, but my quick read is that what you perceive as clarity is largely a result of his ability to balance the light (i.e. post processing!).
John
Posted by Derek Sedillo on July 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I think it comes down to two main factors:
1. Vibrant subject
2. PS skills
Assuming correct exposure of course, I think both are equally important. For example I am sure you have seen websites with pictures of the swiss alps that are all washed out or dull looking - great location and terrible if any post processing.
I think too many people who shoot digital try to rush PP and are missing a lot of what their images 'could' be if they took them to the next level. I find PP and PS to be almost like a galaxy within a galaxy of opportunities for improving skills and images. It really 'is' the new darkroom. Ansel Adams I am sure would have been a master of it had he lived in the digital age.
I have discovered this with my own images and still discovering better ways to really bring out vibrancy, clarity, color, etc... Here is one example of an image I took recently in the Tetons that was washed out looking after initial RAW conversion: http://derek.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p859797987-5.jpg
The funny thing is even though I spent 'some' time with it in PS I know I could still bring out even more detail and clarity if I spend some more time with it.
I think it would be very interesting to study Wingmar's PP workflow as well as folks Like Marc Adamus. I find his images equally if not more stunning. That is one of the things I like the most with this hobby. There is always more to learn.
** Note - I am sure using the 5D and primes help a lot as well.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on July 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I think the air is normally just as clear here, but I've noticed that its been really hazy this summer.
I also agree about the post processing. He is blending multiple exposures, though I have to say he is doing a great job of it. Obviously it doesn't hurt that he has a good eye and a great subject to work with.
Posted by Nat Coalson on July 19, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I agree that the results he's getting are mainly a result of heavy digital processing. There is a whole lot of dodging and burning, local tone adjustment and selective sharpening evident in the work.
Of course, it all starts with the initial capture, and Wingmar definitely is good at reading the light and making good compositions. But IMO the most important aspect of his work is selectively dodging and burning key areas of the image. For example, in the third image, there is no way that the front of the cabin would be lit that way naturally, at least not in a single shot. (He may very well be making blended exposures as well.) Most likely, he lightened it during processing.
His approach to digital processing is not at all unlike Ansel Adams darkroom work; it's all a matter of defining your vision for an image when you're in the field, making the best capture possible, then fulfilling your initial vision during the final processing of the image.
The image attached is another example; this is one of my more heavily worked photos. It took a lot to make it look like this, including working individual areas of the image separately.
Posted by Nat Coalson on July 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Here's the original capture... note the sky, the flowers and the burned corners etc. Plus a lot of very selective sharpening with I'm sure is not evident in this web version.
(I would have done this side by side but for space limitations; you may want to pull these onto your computer to look at them side by side; it makes a comparison easier.)
Posted by Paul Beiser on July 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Thanks, Nat for sharing the photos and what you did!
Posted by Momo Vuyisich on July 19, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I like his photos, but when it comes to clarity, it's hard to beat Adamus' photos (IMO).
Posted by Derek Sedillo on July 19, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Ditto Momo!
I know Marc already leads workshops at a fairly young age. I look forward to any books he may write which cover his digital darkroom process.
Does anyone know if he has published articles on the subject?
Posted by Nat Coalson on July 19, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I also agree about Adamus' work; I like it a lot. Also very heavy post-production. An art unto itself!
Posted by John De Bord on July 19, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Ya Mark also has a page over on deviantArt http://marcadamus.deviantart.com/, seems like quite a few faces from here are on there actually.
Marc's work is second to none
I agree with Nat a lot here. John's style is very similar to my own, in terms of post processing. Dodge/burn and various luminosity adjustments are key, allthough he seems to take it a few steps less realistic than I do. Of course, being there at the right time and a thorough understanding of light and exposure are even more important than any post processing. If I could do it all in PS, I wouldn't be spending nearly 200 days/year in the field waiting for the great light. I don't spend a lot of time in PS, but I know what I'm doing for the most part.
Another important note: don't ever judge something like clarity or sharpness on a web image. Wait to see a big print! I can make a 3mp image look sharper than a scanned 4x5 chrome on the web if I sharpened it right and the scan was an untouched file. Likewise, any luminosity and/or color enhancement must be done right to translate to great prints. The web is not a great venue for thoroughly understanding image quality. Some of these 600 pixel images we see every day have lots of poor PS work evident when seen full-res.
Discussion
13 replieshttp://www.deviantart.com/deviation/59846752/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/59339744/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/57710728/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/57702913/
dan
John
1. Vibrant subject
2. PS skills
Assuming correct exposure of course, I think both are equally important. For example I am sure you have seen websites with pictures of the swiss alps that are all washed out or dull looking - great location and terrible if any post processing.
I think too many people who shoot digital try to rush PP and are missing a lot of what their images 'could' be if they took them to the next level. I find PP and PS to be almost like a galaxy within a galaxy of opportunities for improving skills and images. It really 'is' the new darkroom. Ansel Adams I am sure would have been a master of it had he lived in the digital age.
I have discovered this with my own images and still discovering better ways to really bring out vibrancy, clarity, color, etc... Here is one example of an image I took recently in the Tetons that was washed out looking after initial RAW conversion:
http://derek.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p859797987-5.jpg
The funny thing is even though I spent 'some' time with it in PS I know I could still bring out even more detail and clarity if I spend some more time with it.
I think it would be very interesting to study Wingmar's PP workflow as well as folks Like Marc Adamus. I find his images equally if not more stunning. That is one of the things I like the most with this hobby. There is always more to learn.
** Note - I am sure using the 5D and primes help a lot as well.
Here is another great example from ESS using the 5D and the lowly 24-70L
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=76711&b=vg2&st=0&la=760&ph=37&sid=8545&u=8545
- Derek
I also agree about the post processing. He is blending multiple exposures, though I have to say he is doing a great job of it. Obviously it doesn't hurt that he has a good eye and a great subject to work with.
Of course, it all starts with the initial capture, and Wingmar definitely is good at reading the light and making good compositions. But IMO the most important aspect of his work is selectively dodging and burning key areas of the image. For example, in the third image, there is no way that the front of the cabin would be lit that way naturally, at least not in a single shot. (He may very well be making blended exposures as well.) Most likely, he lightened it during processing.
His approach to digital processing is not at all unlike Ansel Adams darkroom work; it's all a matter of defining your vision for an image when you're in the field, making the best capture possible, then fulfilling your initial vision during the final processing of the image.
The image attached is another example; this is one of my more heavily worked photos. It took a lot to make it look like this, including working individual areas of the image separately.
(I would have done this side by side but for space limitations; you may want to pull these onto your computer to look at them side by side; it makes a comparison easier.)
I know Marc already leads workshops at a fairly young age. I look forward to any books he may write which cover his digital darkroom process.
Does anyone know if he has published articles on the subject?
Marc's work is second to none
Another important note: don't ever judge something like clarity or sharpness on a web image. Wait to see a big print! I can make a 3mp image look sharper than a scanned 4x5 chrome on the web if I sharpened it right and the scan was an untouched file. Likewise, any luminosity and/or color enhancement must be done right to translate to great prints. The web is not a great venue for thoroughly understanding image quality. Some of these 600 pixel images we see every day have lots of poor PS work evident when seen full-res.