finally got photo shop

[DeeDee]

I think I've read that book...

[Steve Foss]

Bob, you know everything about photography that you need to know in order to comment on this pic. That's an excellent characterization of what makes it a compelling photo.

[mountaindew]

stfcatfish, you explained it more precisely than I can! I thank you! You're right...

 Originally Posted By: stfcatfish

(almost always from a tripod)

A tripod is a must for HDR. And don't bother trying capture trees/plants on a windy day!

[Steve Foss]

OK, DeeDee and all:

Here are three images. The first is the untouched original. The second is DeeDee's version after post processing. The third is mine after post processing. I did not try to duplicate DeeDee's look at all, but took the steps I'd take if it were my photo to give it the look I like.

I like DeeDee's version best for the rendering of the subtle edges of the clouds in the mid range and shadows, and I like mine best for the recovery of a lot of the highlights. There were limits to what could be recovered, but more on that later.

Here is the exif on the original (also more on that later): Canon Digital Rebel XT, lens at 24mm, iso400, 1/400 af f11

I don't know what DeeDee's pp regimen was. What I did in this last image was immediately recover as much highlight detail as possible without touching shadows at all using shadows/highlights. Then a slight overall saturation. Then dropping mid-range levels and bringing up shadow levels to add apparent contrast without altering highlights. Then, because there was a lot of digital noise in the shadow areas, I ran noise ninja over the whole image and ended up sharpening the whole image slightly after the fact.

That's it.

As I said, I like some things I did better, but also like some of what DeeDee did better. And in the end, it's all a matter of personal taste. Learning post processing techniques gives the photographic artist a lot more ability to render their vision into art. And it's THEIR vision, not ours.

OK, now to the original image and what the exif tells us. And this gets into detailed photography, so it's not that easy to express completely in writing (much better in person using the actual camera for the examples).

The highlights in the original were blown out and not recoverable in post processing. One way around that would have been to shoot from a tripod and use the auto exposure bracketing feature, which would have produced three images of the same composition. One would have exposed the mid-range properly, one the shadows properly and one the highlights properly. Then the images could have been blended in photoshop. That's the aforementioned HDR technique, which is pretty straightforward when taking the pictures but very involved when processing them.

Another way is a bit more complicated when composing the image and exposing it properly, but is much easier to handle in post processing. That would have been to take a test exposure and then look at the histogram on the camera back. The original posted here would have shown blinking cloud highlights, which are an indication that the highlights are completely blown out (no data recorded). A quick adjustment using exposure compensation to underexpose the image one or two stops (probably two in this case, and again using the histogram to ensure it was dialed in just right), and the original would have been captured without the blown highlights.

OK, so you've got an original without blown highlights, and we can stop right there and be just fine.

But that doesn't mean we can't do a little better, and here's where it starts getting more complicated. At iso400 and underexposing two full stoops, there would have been even more digital noise in the mid-range and dark portions of the clouds than there was in this original, because digital noise LOVES underexposed areas of the image.

Now, knowing that low iso setting yield low digital noise, our exif shows we could have changed our settings to a much lower iso and still gotten a sharp and well exposed photograph.

We had iso400 at 1/400 and f11 originally. If we had underexposed two full stops using exposure compensation (EC), that would have put us at iso400, 1/1600 at f11, which would have captured the highlights better as mentioned.

But that is much more shutter speed than was needed to capture a sharp image here. And again knowing that lower iso settings produce less digital noise, we could have . . . .

. . . . changed settings to iso100. Dropping two stops from iso400 to iso100 would have brought your shutter speed down from 1/1600 to 1/400, which is still generally fast enough for you to handhold at wide angle and get a sharp image.

DeeDee, I realize completely this is a big bunch of info to pack into a single post, and that it runs the gamut of explanation of the interlocking nature of iso, shutter speed and aperture, as well as the variability of digital noise based on iso setting.

These things, which to the professional become second nature, can seem daunting at first and are much easier to teach and learn in person in the field and with repetition. If we were sitting out there in the woods on a summer day with our cameras, it would be a snap. As it is, there's just something (often a LOT) lost in translation.

In the end, the purest pleasure is to take pictures we like and to have fun, and it can be as complicated or as simple as we want to make it. The worst thing that can happen is that a person becomes overwhelmed by too much information and quits taking photographs or gets less joy out of the process.

You have captured an excellent and dramatic photograph, and have done a fine job in pp making it look like your mind/eye/heart want it to look. That is a successful image, and I congratulate you for that.

Everything I've posted here is a matter of fine tuning things, and you'll do that in your own time and at your own pace. And if you don't want to get that involved, that's just fine, too. Just keep taking pictures you like and having fun.

Please feel free to ask anything, anything at all. And thank you again for allowing me to use your excellent image as a teaching and learning tool. It takes a darn good sport to do that.

[DeeDee]

Steve,

Thank you for sooooo much information. Your right it is a bit overwhelming but that just makes me want to try harder. I've already read this a couple times and I am ready to try the next one. As for being a good sport, I just feel really lucky to have you and the rest of this group here to help me and by using MY photos that just makes it even better. I have already learned so much.

Looking at the pictures, I like your better. When I got a closer look mine has a kinda grainy look to it. Yours is much smoother. I guess it is a pretty cool picture

[Steve Foss]

Thanks, DeeDee. Mine is smoother only because of noise ninja, which is made by picturecode and is cheap and easy to buy online, download and start using right away. It installs as a photoshop plug-in with easy to follow instructions, and you can also download free profiles for your specific camera model and install those, also with full and easy instructions.

Keep having fun!

[mountaindew]

Steve, that is EXCELLENT information! More! More!

This is like going to a photography school!

I still have ALOT to learn. Keep the tutorials coming!

[mcary]

Congratulations! You'll love it. The great thing is you can spend years and still be able to learn new tricks to improve images. Have Fun!

[DeeDee]

YEARS?! I was hoping to catch on before then...

[mcary]

You'll catch on before then !!! It's just so versatile that you'll be learning for a long time.