Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Crooked Creek
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:30 am    Post subject: Crooked Creek Reply with quote
Last week I got a chance to get out to Crooked Creek. It's mostly unspoiled, deserted, and yet relatively accessible (assuming you have a 4x4 or ATV).

It was a beautiful sunny day. Great weather for hiking, less so for photographing water. As usual I got distracted by the exploring and my photos suffered. Still, it's a fantastic place and I've salvaged a couple of shots to share.

Everything shot with Planar 50/1.7 at around f/8 or f/11. Exposure problems caused crazy color artifacts which I've attempted to mitigate by converting to B+W.

1) pano converted to BW. Not a great shot but hopefully it'll give you an idea of the terrain.

2) a little stream joining the creek.

3) even in the shade I had trouble with overexposure.

4) Blown highlights aplenty but to me this still works. Fluid curvy water, choppy splashy water, boulders and fierce sun and dappled shadows and I don't know a damn thing about art but that's exactly what I saw and wanted to capture and take back with me.


Someday I'll get back in better light. It's tempting to revisit at dusk, but the idea of getting stuck out there and walking back out in the dark doesn't appeal Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, that last image looks about right to me. Shocked Sun-dappled rushing water has 'real world' overblown highlights
so I think you captured it well. It's super-tough to shoot in these conditions, and I think the last 3 shots are impressive
considering the conditions.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Actually, that last image looks about right to me. Shocked Sun-dappled rushing water has 'real world' overblown highlights
so I think you captured it well. It's super-tough to shoot in these conditions, and I think the last 3 shots are impressive
considering the conditions.


Thanks, I sought out shady subjects and those 3 came out the best. But that meant relatively close subjects and they could have been taken most anywhere, it doesn't give a sense of this valley.

The picture I really want is a spot where the creek widens out, very shallow with colorful gravel everywhere and you can see the sides of the gorge rising on either side. Preferably with autumn colors on those side hills Razz

I'll be back, and next time I'll try film (well bracketed) and HDR.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's so frustrating, isn't it? Last shot is the one that works for me but you were fighting against the light.

I was in a similar situation last weekend so I gave up, put the camera back in the bag and just enjoyed the place.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
When digital finally masters these wide range lighting conditions, it will have finally defeated film!


patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yebisu wrote:
......
I was in a similar situation last weekend so I gave up, put the camera back in the bag and just enjoyed the place.

totally agree with that, sometime it's better to just enjoy the moment and forgot the cam, souvenirs will stays anyway in your memory.....
anyway, this place looks really great, beautiful nature....


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My personal opinion:

first one, wrong exposure (overexposed)
second one, perfect exposure, but image seems soft (wide open?)
third one: bit overexposed, soft
fourth one: good under all respects.

This type of scenes can be metered with incident light, or by using spot meter and calculating contrast
(e.g. in photo #3 make one reading of stone top left and another reading of shadow part of middle stones).
After contrast is calculated, make computation of exposure according to your camera's dynamic range
(specifically, how much can your camera recover highlights that appear clipped in histogram)
(learning your camera well is fundamental)

Let's break this myth of "impossible scene" and "impossible day";
there is no "impossible scene" or "impossible day", only inadequate metering.

It is important however to understand the limitations of camera matrix metering and to learn the use of external meters
(or to use advanced metering functions of camera if present).


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
My personal opinion:

first one, wrong exposure (overexposed)
second one, perfect exposure, but image seems soft (wide open?)
third one: bit overexposed, soft
fourth one: good under all respects.


The softness is camera shake, handheld at 1/15 and 1/13 for the middle two. I was in uncomfortable positions trying to get the angle I wanted, should obviously have brought the tripod.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
My personal opinion:

first one, wrong exposure (overexposed)
second one, perfect exposure, but image seems soft (wide open?)
third one: bit overexposed, soft
fourth one: good under all respects.

This type of scenes can be metered with incident light, or by using spot meter and calculating contrast
(e.g. in photo #3 make one reading of stone top left and another reading of shadow part of middle stones).
After contrast is calculated, make computation of exposure according to your camera's dynamic range
(specifically, how much can your camera recover highlights that appear clipped in histogram)
(learning your camera well is fundamental)

Let's break this myth of "impossible scene" and "impossible day";
there is no "impossible scene" or "impossible day", only inadequate metering.

It is important however to understand the limitations of camera matrix metering and to learn the use of external meters
(or to use advanced metering functions of camera if present).


Here's the uncropped unprocessed version of #2.


I was fortunate that the overexposed part of the image was such that I could just chop it off the bottom Wink but I do prefer the original composition.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also prefer the original composition.
The ideal way to meter this scene (the whole scene) would be to take three spot readings: one of the stones up front, one of the stones in the middle
(choosing the one more similar to 18° gray) and one of the darkest area inside the forest.
You would then be able to calculate both the overall contrast range of the scene, and the quantity of deviation from middle gray of both the highlight and the shadow.
Considering the dynamic range of your camera (common one for DSLR is around 4 stops), it will then be possible for you to see if:
a- the dynamic range of your camera was enough to cover the whole dynamic range of the scene, and
b- if not (that is, if scene's DR is larger than the camera's), by comparing the deviations from middle gray you would be able to decide where to sacrifice something, and how much.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fuzzy , did you play with any curves to help out with the overexposure?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Fuzzy , did you play with any curves to help out with the overexposure?


I made some attempts but didn't have immediate success.

The third one only has a few small areas of color artifacts, but they're vivid Shocked. I should try masking those off for localized level shenanigans.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fuzzywuzzy wrote:
dude163 wrote:
Fuzzy , did you play with any curves to help out with the overexposure?


I made some attempts but didn't have immediate success.
The third one only has a few small areas of color artifacts, but they're vivid Shocked. I should try masking those off for localized level shenanigans.


Or, if unrecoverable, you can always say it's not exposure problem but art, and collect the praises Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I also prefer the original composition.
The ideal way to meter this scene (the whole scene) would be to take three spot readings: one of the stones up front, one of the stones in the middle
(choosing the one more similar to 18° gray) and one of the darkest area inside the forest.
You would then be able to calculate both the overall contrast range of the scene, and the quantity of deviation from middle gray of both the highlight and the shadow.
Considering the dynamic range of your camera (common one for DSLR is around 4 stops), it will then be possible for you to see if:
a- the dynamic range of your camera was enough to cover the whole dynamic range of the scene, and
b- if not (that is, if scene's DR is larger than the camera's), by comparing the deviations from middle gray you would be able to decide where to sacrifice something, and how much.


Forgot to mention, thanks for taking the time for a detailed critique, I'll try to do better next time.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:
Fuzzy , did you play with any curves to help out with the overexposure?


Here's a second attempt at fixing the weird color patches.


I won't say what color, or where they were, let's see if my post processing succeeded.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
looks good to me


PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That last image is looking good!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1