|
|
Tim Schumm
{K:29196} 8/2/2005
|
just fantastic drama!
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Ranke
{K:14476} 7/4/2005
|
Barry, I thank you for your sound and sharp arguments - this is really an important field of interest for me. Film or digital, both methods have to cope with dynamic range just when the lighting is most interesting, as in this example (digital has more problems than film, I must admit). Time-consuming, but probably the best solution is an exposure bracketing series with 1 (max 2) stops, spot metered from sun area to shadows. Ideally, shot with tripod and short time delay (clouds motion !), composite with PS and masks for the different parts. You can do that with film or digitally. More simple is the "dodge and burn" method from a single RAW or negative, convert (or scan) differently toned TIFFs from a single, even handheld shot (as in my Berlin shot), and make a composite. Anyway, the most rewarding philosophy should be the "best of both worlds" approach - shoot film and scan 16 bit/ channel then, make adjustments in PS then.
Regards
Carsten
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Wakelin
{K:7838} 7/4/2005
|
Carsten, thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. Your response got me thinking in relation to your excellent technique of combining images at different exposures and how it might have changed this image. You're completely correct that placing any filter, no matter how good it might be, in front of the lens will affect colour and as such the sky in this image is in some way changed from reality. Additionally, film, and to some extent digital sensors, takes on a blue hue in this kind of evening light so I had to use an 81B warm-up filter to bring the balance back to somewhere close to neutrality. The question that your comment poses though is whether it is better to under-expose an image in order to get a 'well-exposed' sky and then combine that with an over-exposed foreground in order to bring out the maximum dynamic range with accurate colour or whether it's best to use a combination of ND grad filters to achieve a similar result. I must say that I think the multiple exposure route offers enormous flexibility and will, without doubt, become the method of choice but I suspect that it too has its shortcomings in terms of colour fidelity. Under exposing digital images causes significantly more noise and a noticeable colour shift. This is particularly noticeable on smaller sensors and requires noise reduction and colour balancing in PS to resolve. I'm sure this issue will become less important as sensors improve but in the meantime it seems to me that there's no one right solution but I'll continue to enjoy watching exponents such as yourself push back the barriers to produce stunning images like your recent cityscape.
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Ranke
{K:14476} 7/3/2005
|
A clever concept the time-delay for two parts of a composite, have never tried that out. The result is surely near to your eyes` perception of the scenery, with help of filter and PS. The sky colors look not as smooth as I am used to see from medium format with film - maybe that two grad ND filters plus the warm-up filter change the color palette significantly (my own observation is that even one Cokin grad ND plus a - even high quality - circular polarizer together make significant changes to the colors, tricky to get around this issue afterwards). But definitively a smart concept, and very good result.
|
|
|
|
|
Nate Greuel
{K:38} 6/26/2005
|
i noticed the treeline/horizon was more level then i thought right after i posted the comment, guess i just saw the hill.. sorry bout that! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Marie Johnston
{K:1635} 6/26/2005
|
Awesome colours the shy is great good DOF...
Marie
|
|
|
|
|
Zé Ovo
{K:7579} 6/26/2005
|
Wonderful photo!
Very nice composition and colors!
Regards from Brazil
|
|
|
|
Judi Liosatos
{K:34047} 6/26/2005
|
Beautiful...except is it just me or is this image on a tile...LOL!!
Judi
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Wakelin
{K:7838} 6/26/2005
|
Nate, the camera was level, the horizon's on a hill so it's not level. If I were to rotate the horizon the clouds would go downhill!
|
|
|
|
|
Nate Greuel
{K:38} 6/26/2005
|
very nice shot, i love the light rays from the sun.. perhaps consider rotating it a little bit so the horizon is level?
|
|
|
|
carlo raingini
{K:11977} 6/26/2005
|
amazing capture. great colors and DOF. congrats,
carlo
|
|
|
|
John Beavin
{K:4477} 6/26/2005
|
I like this image, rich colours and beautiful rays in the sky though I think I would have cropped a tad off the bottom, up to the top of that white stalk in the centre,well done Barry.
|
|
|
|
|
Barry Wakelin
{K:7838} 6/26/2005
|
Thanks Angelo. The lilac colour's not far off reality although Velvia 50 does tend to imbue images with a magenta tinge. The new Velvia 100 fixes this but seems to impart a blue tint! Can't win can you?!
|
|
|
|
Angelo Villaschi
{K:49617} 6/26/2005
|
A wonderful combination of the two images, Barry.
The wheat field is fantastic, as are the light rays.
The clouds look a bit artificial in colour (the lilac-looking ones) but the overall effect is very pleasing indeed. Congratulations!
|
|
|
|
|
greg collins
{K:12273} 6/26/2005
|
Wow stunning shot. The colour from the sky even reflects on the wheat. Well composed.
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Cartwright
{K:15699} 6/26/2005
|
You've added some effective enhancement to this sunset. The overlay of the two images has brought this to life. I particlualrly like cloud colouring and the green and gold of the wheat. The f22 has given it a great DOF and the overall image is memorable.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
6/26/2005
|
very nice sunset, good colors and beautiful scape.
|
|
|
|
Herman Auer
{K:248} 6/26/2005
|
An amazing shot, Barry. Well done!
|
|
0 
