Posted by Scott Smorra on March 25, 2012 at 11:59 PM
This is an image from Bandon, Oregon in June 2011...yes I'm a bit behind with my processing! I was hoping for some nice sunset light, but it never materialized. Even though the light wasn't very impressive, I had an opportunity to work on DOF blending.
This is a DOF blend of 2 exposures, Nikon D7000, 12-24 Nikkor Dx, no filters
1. 1/8 sec at f/16**, ISO 1600 focused on the foreground flowers. I had to use ISO 1600 due to the random gusts of wind. I set up the tripod about 8 inches above the ground and the front of the lens was about 10 inches from the flowers.
2. 2.5 sec at f/16**, ISO 100 focused at infinity for the sky and sea stacks
**Note - I've learned a lot about DOF blending over the past few months and if I had a chance to do this one over again I would have shot it at f/5.6 or f/8 to minimize diffraction.
I then processed both images in LR3 and CS5. I've been working on a new technique to add a bit of glow to an image and used it here.
If you have any feedback at all about his image please don't hesitate to let me know. Please check out the larger version.
Posted by Scott Miller on March 26, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Scott, I like the image, but the orton glow makes it hard to really see the fruits of the DOF blending. At least on the web sized version on my laptop I can't tell how sharp the flowers are. I will take another look later when I am back on the real monitor!
Posted by Scott Smorra on March 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Thanks for the feedback Scott. I was thinking the same thing when I looked at the web version. Here is an the original with no glow.
Beautiful work, Scott, on both the comp and post-processing. I like the first one because the look of the flowers harmonizes well with the overall mood of the image. And what a mood it is-- perfectly PNW. The 2nd one is great, too, but the flowers look very crisp. These are observations, not meant to criticize either image, as I think each one has its place among viewers.
Posted by Cliff Dodge on March 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM
I like the first one.
The contrast between flowers and b/g sets it off for me. :)
Posted by John Williams on March 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Truly wonderful Scott, especially since you were working with that dark sky. I love these DOF shots; there is such a strong anchoring in the foreground and the background takes you to a great depth.
Interesting to see the contrast between the two photos. Like a vignette, I think there is a real place for this technique in many photos, especially if it is used carefully. (Like a vignette, it's easy to over do.) In this photo, I love how it softens the sharpening of the vegetation; the harshness of the foreground in the second photo just doesn't sit well with my eye. The background is the opposite. When I'm out in nature, I love those days when it is crystal clear and you can see forever. I'd be tempted to blend the two photos, preserving more of the glow in the foreground and less in the background.
One final thought. I'm not sure if there really is a difference between "Orton" and "Glow," but in my simple mind I think of glow as not only adding a blur, but also a brightness. If the blurred layer is not brightened, it will tend to kill contrast and it looks like it did that in the first photo. If you are using Photoshop to add the glow, you might play with adding a brightening curve to the blurred layer (i.e. use the blurred layer as a clipping mask).
Posted by Scott Smorra on April 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Thanks for the feedback everyone. After looking at the first image for a few days, I have decided it is a bit too blurry for my taste. It looks OK on the web, but I don't think I'd ever be able to print it. I went back to the drawing board today and used a traditional "Orton" glow on the foreground flowers. I then used a layer mask to isolate the Orton glow to the lighter tones. I also masked out the background sea stacks to keep them sharper, as suggested by John. I'm happy with how this turned out, but please let me know what you think. Processing this image has been quite a challenge!
Discussion
6 repliesThis is a DOF blend of 2 exposures, Nikon D7000, 12-24 Nikkor Dx, no filters
1. 1/8 sec at f/16**, ISO 1600 focused on the foreground flowers. I had to use ISO 1600 due to the random gusts of wind. I set up the tripod about 8 inches above the ground and the front of the lens was about 10 inches from the flowers.
2. 2.5 sec at f/16**, ISO 100 focused at infinity for the sky and sea stacks
**Note - I've learned a lot about DOF blending over the past few months and if I had a chance to do this one over again I would have shot it at f/5.6 or f/8 to minimize diffraction.
I then processed both images in LR3 and CS5. I've been working on a new technique to add a bit of glow to an image and used it here.
If you have any feedback at all about his image please don't hesitate to let me know. Please check out the larger version.
The contrast between flowers and b/g sets it off for me. :)
Interesting to see the contrast between the two photos. Like a vignette, I think there is a real place for this technique in many photos, especially if it is used carefully. (Like a vignette, it's easy to over do.) In this photo, I love how it softens the sharpening of the vegetation; the harshness of the foreground in the second photo just doesn't sit well with my eye. The background is the opposite. When I'm out in nature, I love those days when it is crystal clear and you can see forever. I'd be tempted to blend the two photos, preserving more of the glow in the foreground and less in the background.
One final thought. I'm not sure if there really is a difference between "Orton" and "Glow," but in my simple mind I think of glow as not only adding a blur, but also a brightness. If the blurred layer is not brightened, it will tend to kill contrast and it looks like it did that in the first photo. If you are using Photoshop to add the glow, you might play with adding a brightening curve to the blurred layer (i.e. use the blurred layer as a clipping mask).