Autumn Vibrance

Thanks for all your generous and detailed responses to my last couple posts. I count on you folks for those opinions!

This one is a small stream off trail in the backcountry of Glacier Park. It is a partial blend of two exposures. Thanks for looking.

I sure like the luminous quality of the curved shelf of rocks in this one, Marc. I just recalibrated my monitor and I wonder if perhaps they are a touch too blue.

The subtle blue does make you feel that mountain chill you get in the shade, and then you have that "porthole" to the sunlit area... really gives you a sense of standing right there. And yes, this image is vibrant! I'm also a sucker for the misty water from the longer exposure.

Marc, did you do double exposure just for luminance, or do you also shoot twice on purpose with the focus near and far to get more DOF? I ask this because there seems to be an uproar about 20+mp sensors having a "diffraction" problem when stopping the lens way down. They claim the image goes way soft at f/16 or f/22. Are you seeing that with the MKIII sensor?

Let me make one thing absolutely and totally clear - The 16-35 f/2.8 II is NOT AT ALL soft at f/16 at any focal length. I have innumerable examples to prove it. At f/22 it gets a bit soft, but what doesn't? I shot this at f/14 and it's tack sharp. I did not double expose for luminance, but I did double process for an added luminance layer, which I applied mostly to the background. Now that I look at this web version, it's coming through just a tad flat....

Marc... I'd do nothing to this. its prefect as far as I am concerned!
JG

THANK YOU! It seemed ludicrous to me that all of a sudden there's the naysayers having to create the newest subject to gripe about. Image-quality wise, what you've produced with that 21mp sensor have been jaw-dropping, so I didn't understand what they were blabbing on about.

I didn't see flatness at all, BTW. I actually asked the question because here was one more example of a gorgeous image that wasn't giving any evidence of their gripe!

As for the image itself...

This is nice. The dark, and cool to bright, and warm transition works very well to move you through the scene. The colors look good, and the compostion is strong.

I can't really find anything to gripe about on this one. However, cropping off the top and left, keeping the same aspect ratio, until the first vertical tree trunk on the left is gone really focuses the image for me. It works well as is, but might be bordering on getting a little too busy.

When I first saw this photo I thought it was from the Elk River here on the Or Coast. I know a spot that is almost a dead ringer for this exact composition. I don't know if you have ever driven up the Elk, but I would highly recommend it if you are ever in the Port Orford area. It's a real hidden gem, that is mosty only known by the salmon and steelhead fishermen in the area.

Jesse, I used the term "luminance" really just to refer to "exposure" or "light" in my question. That may have been the wrong usage... Marc didn't actually mention the word!

I think the question you're asking can be answered here. Sorry for the confusion!

Marc, not doubting your experience with diffraction issues, but they do seem to run counter to this Luminous landscape article...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml

According to this, diffraction becomes an issue with 20+ MP FF cameras at f8!

Personally I don't have any experience, so I'll have to wait and see.

There has to be some diffraction, but that doesn't mean the images aren't sharp enough or that's it's really a big deal in most cases. I can't tell any difference in sharpness between at 5D image and a 1Ds III image at small apertures using the same lens at 100%. I dislike nit-picking articles that delve into a technical discussions complex enough to interest optical physicists. I'd rather compare print quality and 100% resolution, and there I can't find a reason to complain.

Here's a crop from an f/22 version of this shot, which I had used intitially to lengthen the exposure. If you copy this sample, you'll notice I've included the EXIF to show camera, lens and aperture.

I love the composition and the atmosphere (softness).....but for me on my calibrated monitor the colors are all over the place for me. Rocks are too blue, and even in your crop the wood is overly red. Now if that is your intention, then you succeded, but it dosnt look natural to me. Everything else is OK.

Roman

Roman, the color of the rocks was actually blue, and in addition have a cooler color temperature than the background light - emphasizing this contrast enhances depth. I agree about the log being too red in the crop, however, color corrections were made in the final image which you see up top.

Weird....maybe I need to recalibrate?!? (I just calibrated a week ago?!?) but the rocks in certian parts almost remind me of the Malibu Blue I had on an old 67 Chevelle SS I had back in the day (not a color I often see replicated in nature). My appologies if I am off. I will check it at home with my graphics workstation as my work monitor gets just a basic calibration....the one at home is spot on with prints I worked on yesterday.

I'm not saying you need to recalibrate, I'm saying that limestone in this region is often blue in color. I also noted that it has a cooler color temperature when shot in open shade, next to the warm highlights. If I'd shot this on Velvia, for example, the shadows would be just glowing with blue. That's how camera's see things. Any enhancement of this color is purposeful, since it increases depth by creating a contrast between warm and cool. The eye naturally goes towards warm light when contrasted with cool shadows.

While the rocks are very cool (referring to pleasing, no pun intended), I don't find my eye focused or attracted as strongly as in many of your photos.

Well, I looked at home as well and both monitors register the same blue. It spreads into the actual water as well telling me its a PP issue. Foamy water never varies off white too much even in shadows, and the LAB numbers are -12 and -38 in the A and B channels (0 - 0 is pure white)....quite significant. I am not a live by the numbers kind of guy, but it does give evidence to amount of blue I am talking about.

The picture is darned nice, I just think it has PP issues is all.

But in the end....it is your creative expression that matters. If you are satisfied, then that is how the picture is.

I have just followed your intent and wording on your PP on your sites over time, and felt your goal was always what the person experiences, and I almost always see you holding to your words. But in this case the numbers tell a very diffrent story is all.

Roman

Again Roman, I am not now, nor was I ever questioning your monitor. I know it's blue!

Ok...fair enough....my point wasnt that it is blue....blue just seemed to be the sticking point to my origonal issue. But guessing by your response that your done with the conversation.

Roman

That blue glow on the rocks is the schizzle!

I know you are striving to perfect your images but I would like to see you shoot each image as it's own...not shooting it for double and triple processing....the shot you took that was on the cover of OP was great...you had killer detail in the clouds but the shadows were dark and black...very realistic....the stuff you are putting up now is only realistic as the eye sees it......and no camera has the dynamic range of the human eye.......your work is stellar and sets the bar for others to strive for but at the same time it has a bit of un realisticness (if that is a word) to it.....