[dmort]

Shot this tripod mounted and then converted to black and white in lightroom. Thoughts?

Attached Images

 

[Schraubstock]

Hi David

I have to be honest to myself and to you and I always tell it the way it is (or the way I see it and that is all I ever can do).

The image does nothing to me. It is too dark (unnecessarily) and it lacks substance. Nothing much to look at.

I also am not a fan of the art of photographing water to make it look like low lying fog or a substance that came down from outer space like some sort of alien goo. Now I know a lot of people think it looks very artistic, and that is fine with me, but I don't. If it is water it should look like water.

I have played around with your image on my computer but I cannot come up with any improvement. Sorry for the blunt answer, but don't give up, try again please.

Greetings

[dmort]

Cool. Thanks for the input! What do you think about these two? Each is a separate image, not crops. Too be truthful, I don't get out all that often, and these were from a rare recent trip out to the most "interesting thing, I could think of." Perhaps obviously, you might still not like the water! As it is silky smooth and does not necessarily look like water... Rather "high density water vapor..."

[EyeSpy]

well since your experimenting. why not hdr the color photo for kicks. this conversion has somewhat of a surreal quality but the big stick in the middle is distracting. the name of the waterfall fits that's for sure.

[EyeSpy]

oops. posted about the same time you posted dmort. i like the third shot it has perspective. the b/w conversion didn't have so much as the waterfall ate it up and your eye was going no where.

[dmort]

The third shot is a pano merge of 6 images. The only thing I wasn't pleased with is the distortion bulge, I did my best to get rid of it, but I wonder if my vantage point was too low..

and...

but the big stick in the middle is distracting

I sort of think of the stick as the subject and the waterfall as the background. But perhaps it wasn't composed to reflect that concept.

[Schraubstock]

Hi

Now that I can see a bit more of the image I have a better idea what it is all about.

I am afraid the full image is not very well exposed and the colour is wrong. You can see this when comparing it with the panorama picture where the colours are more accurate. But here too it is not correctly exposed.

I quite like the panorama shot and when corrected looks quite acceptable to me. The limitations of a low bit rate compressed small JPG make it next to impossible to rescue a picture meaningfully but I have given it a go only to point you in the right direction to my understanding of the matter.

Hope I have been of help, not deterred you from further exploits but to spur you on to more and better things.

---

Last edited by Schraubstock; 06-05-2012 at 06:45 AM.

[dmort]

I'm just wondering, how do you know that it wasn't the first photo that was properly exposed and the pano that was altered? The photos were taken around or right after sunset. To tell the truth, while perhaps a little too blue, the first exposure is closer to what I recall at the time. Additionally, I note that it seems you are taking a more documentary perspective as opposed to an artistic perspective. Am I incorrect? Regardless, I appreciate the criticism. I think the next time I'm up there, I'll take another crack at the waterfall, perhaps at a different time of day and see how it goes.

All images were shot raw, of course the forum limits what I can upload here.

[dmort]

Here is another from the same outing... more foreground material. I just looked at the white balance and the exposure and tried to get it to match up with my memory as best I could.

[Schraubstock]

Hi David

I get this question ask a lot. People tell me, the light was yellow, the light was green or it was red or whatever and that is the way it was, I remember it well. (But memories can trick you)

Have you ever noticed the over saturated TV colours in hotels and other public places? People love strong colours.

Now the answer.
Firstly believe it or not; 40 years in photography and fine art printing (some 10 years.)

Secondly; Software.

1) When you look at your photograph that I identified as being to blue, what do you see. You see water that runs over a lip and as it does so it picks up air. Air makes the water appear lighter in colour and if it is churned up enough into a fine spray no matter what the water colour will actually always appear white. (if there is enough air) and as it hits the bottom it becomes even lighter and often you see white foam appearing. To make the water or the bottom splashes in your picture render as blue it would have to be "body tinted" and I think this would not be the case unless it was heavily polluted with something. You would have to shine a very strong blue theater light onto the scene to get that sort of reflection on that angled tree trunk for example.

There is a phenomenon called the "Blue Hour" Blue Hour and Night Photography | How to learn tutorials | bluehoursite.com but to judge by the sky you were not in it. When next time you revisit the scene take particular notice of this.

2) Second part of the answer is software related. I have specialized software that reliably detects colour pollution and removes it. I have no understanding how the software actually does this but I believe in simple terms there is an algorithm which looks for a uniform colour value that appears as a component in addition to the known colour values as the sensor has recorded them, identifies this value and removes it from the picture. There are degrees of accuracy and further adjustments can/must be made. See part 1) But surprisingly casts can be removed accurately and the result ... well if you don't like... you can always go back to the original.

Greetings

[dmort]

What is that software? That sounds very useful!

[Macario]

composition wise the shots are nice, what lacks 9especially with the first one) is white. The moving water should be white instead of grey. then it should have more impact

[dmort]

Good point... White is white, not gray. I think I really need to spend more time learning the develop features of lightroom. I mostly use it as a management tool and what the heck is the point of shooting in raw if you don't develop?

[Schraubstock]

What is that software? That sounds very useful!

I have several but the easiest to work with, particularly for the novice, is to be found here: The Plugin Site - Plugins for Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements, Paint Shop Pro, Corel, After Effects, Premiere and more
they also have a sharpening program (FocalBlade) that I consider as one of the best around. I do all my sharpening with this.

Greetings