Posted by Sandy Steinman on September 12, 2010 at 11:12 AM
It looks to me like you were fighting the bright sun light that I remember only to well that weekend. The location and flowers are great but light extremely difficult. I found I did whatever I could in Lightroom (where I mainly do digital darkoom) to decrease contrast using lightening blacks, boosting recovery, decreasing the contrast in curves and lowering clarity. It didn't make the exposures great, but did make them better.
Posted by David Senesac on September 12, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Have been visiting the Carson Pass area for wildflower work long before it became popular. I have several issues with these kind of images that I often see on this board but infrequently bother to critically comment on.
As I've noted generally in the past I'm not a fan of larger shadows in image frames unless they have something to contribute. I often find shadows in image frames distracting especially when they are geometrically awkward and or unbalanced as is here. Dark shadowed trees may work especially if they are silhouettes against say the sky or distant background, have whimsicle shapes, or offer horizontal balance.
Here they are all to the left and relatively dark and formless. At top left edge is a brighter trunk. Bright elements at frame edges when cropped out almost always improve images. The long tree shadow from the left ending in the white barkless snag also is distracting although the snag probably did appear interesting in person but here in order to render the main scene properly the snag's left branch via the digital sensor is just an overly bright awkward white element that tends to draw attention from the general wildflower slope subject. If the one large bright branch to the left were absent, it would have worked since the other branches were reasonably rendered.
Many photographers today are in my opinion far too oriented to early and late light when targeting vegetation subjects as is the case here that could be early morning but appears to be later afternoon given the orientation of Elephants Back. Sometimes such can work wonderfully,
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/08-A6-3.jpg
while other times not. As Sandy noted, these situations are difficult and I would add to the point a photographer needs to learn when to leave a subject alone until a light situation is better. The situation here is much like this early morning light subject:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/08-A2-4.jpg
Were it not for the partial high clouds, the result would have been too contrasty thus not worth my wasting a pricy sheet of film. One might think that offset shadowing as here allowing individual plants/flowers to contrast better will result in a better image however my own experience is that is often not the case. Either digital or (especially) film renders subjects more contrasty than our eyes that often gives such images an unaesthetic quality I can't really explain except to state a result that I usually don't value as much as with somewhat less contrast. I shoot alot of flower closeups too and can sometimes see the same thing when using flash and the background goes almost black. More pleasing is often a moderated fill flash light capture. So this subject could be a nice one to come back to some late July Robert, especially with more diffuse cloud lighting.
Posted by Robert Dayton on September 12, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Thank you very much Sandy and David. I agree with all of your
helpful comments.
Because I don't have Lightroom, I can't try some of the suggestions
that you've made, Sandy. Had I shot this scenic with my Canon 5D
Mark II, I would be able to do some of things that you've suggested,
such as "clarity" and "recovery". When I shoot with my 10D, as I did
here, I use Elements 7.
David, your critique is right on. I shot this early morning as I recall.
You're definitely right about the dark shadows and dark trees not
working. In addition, the overly white limb/branch of the tree on the
right is definitely distracting.
Detailed critiques like this will help me to improve. Thank you.
Robert, I can surely see what drew you to this scene and the overall thoughts in trying to capture this image. The abundance of vegetation here is all too inviting.
As stated previously, and in your own comment & review the shadows are very deep and tough to overcome to a preferred level of finding any hidden detail.
Using Velvia 50 as I do I find that shadows can block up very easy and take an image south quickly. I've just learned to be careful at trying to work through the extreme contrasts, although admittedly not an easy thing at all.
Posted by Paul Duval on September 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Robert I use Elements 6 so I can identify with not being able translate all of the suggestions. Sometimes when the light is bright like this the only thing you can do is open up the aperture and get in close to the subject, a fast shutter speed does allot to help with bright contrasty subjects.At 3.8 or 4.5 even at ISO 100 your shutter spped might be as high as 1/1000 really helps freeze motion in wind too. Sometimes all you need to help diffuse the light is a thin cover of cirrus clouds.
Paul
Posted by Lon Overacker on September 15, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Robert,
Chiming in a little late here but I wanted to add something that hasn't been mentioned. It's one thing to talk about hard/harsh light, time of day etc., but another very important variable is also the DIRECTION of the light, not so much what time of day. Sure, in the morning and evening hours you have that softer, warmer light - but it can be too hot sometimes. That may be because of the direction of the light and how your choosing to use it. Here is a case where you have strong directional light that is "front lighting" the vegetation. The colors seem flat and washed out because of the direction of the light. You may notice on other landscapes similar to this folks try and get the flowers perhaps a bit more back lit so the "glow" a little more. OR, in many cases when the direct light has left the scene either at sunset, scattered clouds or complete overcast.
Sure looks like there was a bonanza of flowers up in that area this year. I like the scene and would agree though with most other comments in terms of the heavy shadows and contrast. That's another thing too, the camera's meter is going to overcompensate with the bright light on the flowers and under expose a little, which really brings down the shadows even more.
Discussion
6 repliesweeks ago to the Carson Parson area in
Northern CA. I always appreciate your
comments/critiques.
Canon 10D
Tamron 28-300 Zoom Lens
Polarizer
Bogen Tripod
Sandy
Natural History Wanderings
As I've noted generally in the past I'm not a fan of larger shadows in image frames unless they have something to contribute. I often find shadows in image frames distracting especially when they are geometrically awkward and or unbalanced as is here. Dark shadowed trees may work especially if they are silhouettes against say the sky or distant background, have whimsicle shapes, or offer horizontal balance.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/06-DD9-1.jpg
Here they are all to the left and relatively dark and formless. At top left edge is a brighter trunk. Bright elements at frame edges when cropped out almost always improve images. The long tree shadow from the left ending in the white barkless snag also is distracting although the snag probably did appear interesting in person but here in order to render the main scene properly the snag's left branch via the digital sensor is just an overly bright awkward white element that tends to draw attention from the general wildflower slope subject. If the one large bright branch to the left were absent, it would have worked since the other branches were reasonably rendered.
Many photographers today are in my opinion far too oriented to early and late light when targeting vegetation subjects as is the case here that could be early morning but appears to be later afternoon given the orientation of Elephants Back. Sometimes such can work wonderfully,
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/08-A6-3.jpg
while other times not. As Sandy noted, these situations are difficult and I would add to the point a photographer needs to learn when to leave a subject alone until a light situation is better. The situation here is much like this early morning light subject:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/08-A2-4.jpg
Were it not for the partial high clouds, the result would have been too contrasty thus not worth my wasting a pricy sheet of film. One might think that offset shadowing as here allowing individual plants/flowers to contrast better will result in a better image however my own experience is that is often not the case. Either digital or (especially) film renders subjects more contrasty than our eyes that often gives such images an unaesthetic quality I can't really explain except to state a result that I usually don't value as much as with somewhat less contrast. I shoot alot of flower closeups too and can sometimes see the same thing when using flash and the background goes almost black. More pleasing is often a moderated fill flash light capture. So this subject could be a nice one to come back to some late July Robert, especially with more diffuse cloud lighting.
helpful comments.
Because I don't have Lightroom, I can't try some of the suggestions
that you've made, Sandy. Had I shot this scenic with my Canon 5D
Mark II, I would be able to do some of things that you've suggested,
such as "clarity" and "recovery". When I shoot with my 10D, as I did
here, I use Elements 7.
David, your critique is right on. I shot this early morning as I recall.
You're definitely right about the dark shadows and dark trees not
working. In addition, the overly white limb/branch of the tree on the
right is definitely distracting.
Detailed critiques like this will help me to improve. Thank you.
As stated previously, and in your own comment & review the shadows are very deep and tough to overcome to a preferred level of finding any hidden detail.
Using Velvia 50 as I do I find that shadows can block up very easy and take an image south quickly. I've just learned to be careful at trying to work through the extreme contrasts, although admittedly not an easy thing at all.
Paul
Chiming in a little late here but I wanted to add something that hasn't been mentioned. It's one thing to talk about hard/harsh light, time of day etc., but another very important variable is also the DIRECTION of the light, not so much what time of day. Sure, in the morning and evening hours you have that softer, warmer light - but it can be too hot sometimes. That may be because of the direction of the light and how your choosing to use it. Here is a case where you have strong directional light that is "front lighting" the vegetation. The colors seem flat and washed out because of the direction of the light. You may notice on other landscapes similar to this folks try and get the flowers perhaps a bit more back lit so the "glow" a little more. OR, in many cases when the direct light has left the scene either at sunset, scattered clouds or complete overcast.
Sure looks like there was a bonanza of flowers up in that area this year. I like the scene and would agree though with most other comments in terms of the heavy shadows and contrast. That's another thing too, the camera's meter is going to overcompensate with the bright light on the flowers and under expose a little, which really brings down the shadows even more.
Lon