My main criticism isn't the color. I wasn't there and have never been
to Yosemite let alone this particular spot. It looks unreal to me
because the sky is too dark. Regardless of the sun angle or the
altitude of the rocks vs the foreground the sky can't be less bright
than what it's illuminating. The sky is that big diffuser thingy up
above and the source of the light. Gotta be brigher there. If the
ground is glowing in Yosemite everbody oughta get out of there.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Thanks to all who commented. I intentionally didn't make any of my own
> observations, so as to elicit responses unaffected by my thoughts.
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>If I could be so bold I'd like to offer some criticism of your latest
>>effort. When I first looked at it my instant thought was that this does
>>not look real. Although the foreground contrast and color diversity has
>>been enhanced (I'm not ready to say improved because I suspect it's been
>>a bit overdone) there has been a very significant loss in sky brightness
>>(and to my eye) accuracy of sky color.
>
> The sky is an interesting issue, and brings up the issue of color
> accuracy in general. The original scan was done when I was rather new to
> scanning and editing. More significant, perhaps, it was done without a
> film icc profile and on an uncalibrated monitor. So any relationship
> between the color in the image and that of the subject is entirely
> coincidental. The second image was scanned using an icc profile for the
> film, so the colors, observed on a calibrated monitor, should be
> relatively accurate. I did not do any color balance adjustment to it.
>
> I think the sky in the old one is less realistic than in the new. One
> thing that I noticed right away when I looked at the old one after many
> months was the blown highlight detail in the clouds. some parts have
> gone completely to white, In the new one, I've held subtle cloud detail,
> easier to see on the bigger version I look at. That means the old sky is
> too bright too, as I'm sure I didn't adjust clouds separately from sky
> back then. Nor did I here, although I sometimes do elsewhere. It's
> actually almost impossible to adjust sky and clouds separately from the
> rest of the image here, because of the sky/cloud showing through trees.
> I tried, and it's almost impossible without making the trees look very odd.
>
>>The net effect strikes me as
>>very unreal and I believe the reason is that the sky has become less
>>bright than the opened up highlights in the mountains. The sky (the
>>light source) simply isn't bright enough to light the ground.
>>
>
> I can't deny doing a lot of "picture postcarding" to the rock/mountain
> areas. On the other hand, the shade pools under the trees show the sun
> almost directly overhead, so bright, direct lighting on them doesn't
> seem unnatural to me. It also strikes me that you may not be allowing
> for altitude effects on sky brightness/color away from the sun. The
> camera was at about 4,000 ft. and the peaks there, Sentinel Rock(s) are
> about 6,000 ft.
>
> I think the lower foreground, in front of the trees, may be toned down
> from the subject. It had been a very wet winter and this was brand new
> spring alpine grass in boggy meadows, bright, bright, almost unnatural
> green. I chose to keep it toned down just a bit to keep the focus on the
> middle ground.
>
>>I wasn't there so don't have any idea what the scene really looked like
>
> That's the thing, nobody really knows. My only objective referent is the
> profiled film scan. And the profile, although in the right time of day,
> was done at 1,000 ft. That may make a difference too.
>
>>
>>but think what I personally would find most pleasing is something close
>>to the original sky
>
> I'd like a little brighter sky with a more pure blue, as a matter of
> being pleasing. And I can probably do that for a web size image, but not
> for one for printing at 8x10 or larger, which is where I hope to go with
> this one, without trouble in the trees. The old sky looks too plasticky
> to me. Maybe it's just the clouds.
>
>>and then foreground and mountains about half way between the first and second
>>versions.
>>
>
> Now that you are talking about what one would personally prefer, rather
> than accuracy to the original, the issue of differences between the
> human vision system and our electro-mechanical imaging systems comes up.
> The flat, lifeless, undifferentiated look of the rocks is just not how I
> remember this day and area. It had been raining and snowing, so the air
> was clean and clear, quite unlike later in the year, when campfire
> smoke, car exhaust, smog blown up from the San Joaquin Valley, etc., can
> make it quite hazy, and the snow on the tops was fresh and white. So I
> adjusted that part to my, possibly emotional, rather than objective,
> memory of a fresh, clear, bright, sparkly day after a couple of days of
> loooow overcast and precipitation. That light before was great for
> different effects, of course.
>
> The different areas are in different layers, so I can easily mess around
> later. For now, I'm thinking about a print to contemplate for a while,
> as AG suggests, before any more changes.
>
> Christos Stavrou wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry Moose, but I would agree with Chuck.
>
> Sorry? Naw, this is all subjective stuff, and I asked for opinions.
>
>>And although I'm not
>>such a fan of reality (it is subjective after all) I am not so pleased
>>with the second picture.. it's abit overcooked :) The first pic gave
>>me a wonderful feeling, even if its lighting seems to have some
>>blocked or dull details, especially in the midtones. And certainly
>>what Chuck says about the sky is very well argued.
>
> I'm pretty sure the first one is less true to the original subject than
> the second, certainly emotionally less true. I don't know if you have
> been to Yosemite, especially in the early spring. It is visually
> astonishing. John Muir didn't call the Sierra Nevada the Range of Light
> just as hyperbole. The rocks in the second version are undoubtedly over
> cooked, but perhaps less than you might think. The first version is, I
> think, quite undercooked, but who knows. It's been four years. Carol
> Anne says it's time to go again. Certainly not until Fall at the
> earliest, for the light, the air and the smaller crowds. Nect time, I'll
> take along the WhiBal to further help accuracy.
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>>.....
>>Oh, and thanks. I don't feel so bad about my old stuff now.
>
> That was certainly part of my intent. :-)
>
> ScottGee1 wrote:
>
>>Well the new version is certainly a significant improvement over the old one.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>>But, I've gotta ask -- how 'good' is the original slide/neg?
>>
>
> I don't know, how do you tell with a neg?
>
>>It looks to me like a shot with internal lens flare that reduced the
>>overall contrast of the image, leaving it with a veiled appearance
>>that no amount of post processing can really remedy.
>>
>
> Interesting thought. I was vacationing, having fun, and I didn't keep a
> record of each shot, although I know what lenses I had with me. I think
> this was probably taken with the Vivitar S1 19-35/3.5-4.5 @ 19mm. I did
> use a hood with that lens, but some flare wouldn't be unexpected.
> However, I've looked through other shots taken at the same time and
> place and one almost certainly shot with the 28/2.0 with hood has much
> the same quality.
>
> Even though the sun was almost directly overhead, light with tall,
> almost vertical, rock faces can be tricky. It looks like much of the
> face of the big rocks are actually just in shadow, and I chose to try to
> bring them out. :-)
>
> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
>
>>It looks really real and great improvement to my naive eyes until I
>>read Chuck's comment. :)
>
> Don't let him fool you, it's perfect. ;-)
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|