[guerito]

Seen on the trip back from the River Elbe...

[Toad]

Let me be the first to comment.

Lovely!! Don't change a thing. You've even managed to salvage the blackness at the bottom.

[guerito]

Thanks Toad!

It's really a pity that digital doesn't have any dynamic range to speak of. Again and again I try to take these shots as I see them - to no avail. In the foreground is a field with oilseed (rapeseed? We call it Raps), full with yellow blossoms. You can see but a glimpse of it in the picture, after heavy processing in PS. The sun is blown out. In the original scene everything was perfectly visible, and the sun dark enough to look at it. I think I might go back to film.

[Toad]

...or switch to RAW.

You can process the image to expose for the rape field - save it as a layer - then reprocess the RAW original to expose for the sky and save it as another layer. Mask out the over/under exposed bits from each layer and have a perfectly exposed photo - can't do that trick with film.

Having said that - I know what you mean - I am constantly amazed by the image quality that I get from pro films such as Velvia (saturation, low grain, and dynamic range) - can't get that in digital without a bunch of post-processing.

[Don Schaeffer]

Great stark and eeirie photo.

--Don

[shuttertalk]

Great photo G. I love the sihlouettes and the magnificent sky.

As you said - pity about the darkness at the bottom, but you've gained a lovely sky instead. In fact... I'm leaning towards saying that this shot is pretty unique in its own right.


Just in terms of the dynamic range - perhaps you could have bracketed and exposed for the sky, and then the ground.. and then merged the two later?

[Petographer]

I tried playing with the image just for curiosity. The bottom is irrecoverable as it is. But don't let that mean the photo needs further editing. It is perfect. Great image G.

[slejhamer]

Cool picture. Given the title, I was imagining that the props were powering a little field of nightlights.

[EnglishBob]

Perfect.

'nuff said.

[guerito]

I found another shot of this, and with this one I followed Toad's advice.



This is approximately what I remember to have seen...

[slejhamer]

That's quite good! Totally different "feel" from the other.

[Toad]

Good example of the technique, G!

I know this isn't the Critique forum so forgive me for being picky. I would make the lighting on the field just a bit subtler, and I would smooth the "seam" between the background and foreground a little as I see a dark line.

It is a totally different mood. I like both of them.

[Kombisaurus]

well done G.. Beautiful shot and lovely bit of post work.

I'm all for photoshopping techniques like this. The eye/brain combination is such an amazing and flexible bit of gear that we need plenty of tricks like this to try to accurately represent the way we actually *see* the scene, not just how the camera might capture it. To me, the 2nd image is a more faithful representation of the scene, even though some might claim you cheated by editing it.

Shots like that are just begging to be taken
There are some wind farms here in WA, and I've been waiting for an excuse to go down to Albany or where one of the other farms are to grab some shots.

I found a gallery of shots from the construction of the Albany wind farm... They really show just how big these things are.

http://www.westernpower.com.au/html/alba...llery.html

Got any more nice shots of the day to share?

[Toad]

Kombi: I totally agree re eye/brain combo.

I will get concerned about cheating with PhotoShop when:

1. Camera lenses and film/CCDs work as well as my eye - focus, exposure latitude and speed-wise.
2. Cameras can apply fuzzy logic to represent what my BRAIN sees (might be much different then my eye.
3. Cameras can faithfully do the sort of artistic manipulations that can add value to an otherwise lacklustre photo.

[Kombisaurus]

I will get concerned about cheating with PhotoShop when:

1. Camera lenses and film/CCDs work as well as my eye - focus, exposure latitude and speed-wise.
2. Cameras can apply fuzzy logic to represent what my BRAIN sees (might be much different then my eye.
3. Cameras can faithfully do the sort of artistic manipulations that can add value to an otherwise lacklustre photo.

Yes, and once cameras can do all that, there will be no need for photographers any more. They will just become the "trained monkeys" who happen to point the camera in roughly the right direction.

See.. Software Architects and Engineers really ARE the new artists - they design and write the firmware for cameras and the effects for photoshop. Even now as photographers we are constrained by what their software lets us do, but we also have them to thank for enabling us to do it in the first place.

[Toad]

Yes, and once cameras can do all that, there will be no need for photographers any more. They will just become the "trained monkeys" who happen to point the camera in roughly the right direction.

I'd like to see the monkey who could spend as much money on gear as I do!

Stupid beasts...

[shuttertalk]

Hey G... I really like the 2nd version. It keeps the same atmosphere, but you can see more detail in the field. Nice!

[Petographer]

That second shot is awesome. Well done G. One of the nicest images I've seen from you!

[guerito]

Thanks, guys!

BTW the dark line spanning the horizon is not sloppy blending, it's distant foliage. I left it dark on purpose (that means I didn't know what to do with it). Here's a crop at 100%:

[Toad]

Sorry!

[guerito]

No problem, really. Sometimes it's a pity to shrink the picture to this ridiculous small size. Not much more than a thumbnail, it loses detail.

[taurus10]

The second one appeals stronly a graphic balance between natural status and the mechanics of man
frank