Here are some shots all taken from Paradise Divide on the 23rd of July or the 24th of July. All I used was a 2 stop ND filter, or nothing as in the last two twilight photos. Give me your feedback, it is very welcome. As I have said in earlier posts, I like to get the shot right in the camera, so using photoshop to alter photos is not my style, other than doing things to make the photograph more appealing for different media. Adding to a photo is not my style.
While getting the image right in camera is important, almost all digital images need to be optimized in PS (or some such) to look their very best.
The first four have a lot of potential, but the shadows are pretty blocked up because the sensor couldn't handle all of the contrast difference. This is where a two (or more) correctly exposed image blend would have paid off.
#5 looks great, though! Nicely layered landscape. You might consider 'losing' the stray branch protruding into the lake (..yeah, I know...more PS work ).
John, thanks for the comments. I appreciate the effort. I think that you may have misunderstood my comments regarding imaging process. I know that digital, if fact, even film images need post processing. Unsharp masking, levels adjustments, cropping, all of which could be done in a dark room. What I don't believe in is, for example, taking a landscape with a boring sky, so you add clouds and make the sky blue. I guess to be most accurate, I just don't want to alter the actual photo. It is tempting sometimes, like when you take a beautiful landscape and then see a small tent in the shot somewhere. Using photoshops clone stamp or patch tool to fix those are extremely tempting, but to me, adding a blue sky with clouds, or lightning is just going too far. Most of the images I posted were just raw, but I usually will use some unsharp masking and levels adjustments.
Also, if by blending you mean HDR, I do think there is a time and place for that as well, because I often want the photograph to record what I saw (with my eyes dynamic range), as in the photos you pointed out. I did bracket all of those exposures, so doing a little blending shouldn't be a problem.
Again, thanks for the comments.
"What I don't believe in is, for example, taking a landscape with a boring sky, so you add clouds and make the sky blue. I guess to be most accurate, I just don't want to alter the actual photo."
I'm in complete agreement there. Sorry if I misunderstood your comments.
Nice little flower field. If you are using GND filters I would watch the transition line that it does not come down to far into the image. I like #5 for its even lighting and nice clouds in the sky. Beautiful.
Well, that wasn't me that disliked the composition, but I sure do prefer this version over the previous version. If you can 'fix' that sky, I think you have a keeper here.
Discussion
11 repliesThe first four have a lot of potential, but the shadows are pretty blocked up because the sensor couldn't handle all of the contrast difference. This is where a two (or more) correctly exposed image blend would have paid off.
#5 looks great, though! Nicely layered landscape. You might consider 'losing' the stray branch protruding into the lake (..yeah, I know...more PS work
Also, if by blending you mean HDR, I do think there is a time and place for that as well, because I often want the photograph to record what I saw (with my eyes dynamic range), as in the photos you pointed out. I did bracket all of those exposures, so doing a little blending shouldn't be a problem.
Again, thanks for the comments.