Mountains in the Mist

[ShaneS]

The last month has been pretty hectic in my world. Between travel, work and family commitments I have barely had time to lurk or comment around here and even less time for photography.

This past Sunday I spent a long awaited day out and about with the camera. The weather didn't really cooperate and I have only had time to process a couple of images that I will post here for your C&C.

The sky was overcast and the rain, as it does in Hawaii, came and went as we traversed through a relatively unknown garden. The Ko'olau Mountains on Oahu are breathtakingly beautiful but I have found it hard to capture 'the' image of them in any weather so I was happy when we got to the top of the garden trail and found the rain clouds flirting with the mountains.



A little later in the day and a little further down the road I captured a different view of a similar scene...



I am concerned that the second image looks a bit flat and would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I also found it very difficult to lock focus on the mountains in the mist and wonder if others have had similar problems and how it is best dealt with.

I am hopeful that I can be a little bit more consistent in both my participation around here and getting out and about with the camera going forward...

[Mike Buckley]

We missed you, Shane!

Both are quite nice but I wonder if you have a version of the first one that is more similar to the second one (horizontal orientation showing less of the bottom part of the mountains).

If you were using auto focus and had a difficult time finding enough contrast for the camera to focus, in that situation I move the camera until it focuses, hold the focus and recompose. If you were using a tripod, you could have instead used manual focus and Live View in a magnified viewing so you can be certain that everything is sharp.

[ShaneS]

Thanks Mike...it's good to be back

The composition of the first shot was dictated by some foreground trees that were encroaching on the frame left and right. While I would have loved to get a wider view I would have had to scale a cliff to do so and that wasn't happening! I am working on some other wider scenes but none with just the mountain.

As far as focus goes I have a sneaking suspicion that I have some issues with the focusing of the lens in general. I will have to test out that theory with clearer weather and faster shutter speeds.

[deetheturk]

Welcome back Shane, looks like an amazing place, very well done considering what you were up against!

David

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, definitely worth experimenting further with post processing.

[Mike Buckley]

Shane,

Imagine cropping the first one just above the top of the mountain and just below the bottom of the clouds to resemble the feel of your second photo. That's the style I was thinking of. Naturally, you could do that with this file but the maximum size of your print would be severely limited.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Shane, nice to see you posting again I especially like #1.

[ShaneS]

Thanks Binnur and John.

What further exploration in PP did you have in mind John?

Mike, just out of curiosity, why do you think that the wider cropped view would improve the presentation of the first shot? I like the inclusion of the ridges without the clouds and think that adds to the overall composition.

[Mike Buckley]

It's just that I like the attention on the interaction of the clouds and mountain in the second one. So, I find a similar composition appealing in the first one.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Shane,

Good to see you posting again, we all have other commitments that get in the way at times.

I suspect the flatness is caused by the thinner cloud that you are standing in or is within your field of view but don't realise it.

Of the two I have a preference for No 2 and maybe No 1 would benefit from some of the plain sky cropped?

Grahame

[ShaneS]

Thank you for the clarification Mike.

Grahame...very happy to be back but I certainly was challenged by the elements on this shoot. You are very right about the mist in the air and it created all sorts of challenges from focusing to exposure and even more so in PP.

Most of the shots from the day are a bit soft due to a breeze that was blowing and the longer shutter speeds that entailed while I kept the ISO at 100. In hindsight the ISO choice was a mistake, despite using a tripod. I also found myself using positive exposure compensation quite a bit as at aperture priority many of the images were underexposed for the highlights initially. That was a fine balance to navigate in camera.

In PP it was hard to recreate the atmosphere that I saw on sight and I found that raising the black point really helped with definition but took something away from most of the shots. I'm still pondering that aspect in PP and hope to have some more to share soon.

I'm afraid that I won't have a lot of keepers from the shoot but it was a good learning experience in many ways.

[PhotoByTrace]

Hi Shane,
I quite like number 2. Which software are you using for post-processing? I can describe how I'd tackle some Post processing in Lightroom, but it always depends on your vision for the image. It could potentially look quite haunting as a B&W with some burning and dodging; but I personally love colour images.

For me when I look at this I'd like to add warmth, though I'm sure as many others would do the opposite. And since I didn't see the scene, I'm not sure what your own vision is... but I can try describing how I'd tackle it.

I'd start in LR by tweaking the white balance a little for some more warmth. Then I'd add a GND to darken the cloud/mist just a bit; in that GND adjustment I'd also add contrast to separate out the highlights and shadows within the mist. Now depending on whether you want it to look threatening or soft and misty, you could also add or remove clarity from that GND. I'd go with soft and misty and reduce the clarity. May also be good to tweak the temp and tint in the GND a little to give the mist some warmth or coolness, depending on your preference.

For the global changes, I'd add a little bit of contrast, even though the fog gives a low contrast image overall. I'd lift the shadows as they are a bit dark on the lower right. And I'd sharpen with a mask to give the mountain edge more definition.

To just punch the greens in the mountain a little I'd head down to camera calibration and take the saturation on my greens through to 100%.

If you like I can post an image with some adjusting??? Not sure if that would be okay by you, or helpful or not... Let me know.
Cheers
Trace

[ShaneS]

I'd love to see what you are describing Trace so feel free to post your version.

I didn't play too much with the color temperature but tried to add some definition to the clouds and did lift the shadows a bit as suggested. Maybe I played it too safe? Black & white was a real consideration as I also think it would look good but I opted for a color presentation.

I use Photoshop CS5 and the NIK plugins after making initial adjustments to the RAW file in ACR.

[PhotoByTrace]

I'd love to see what you are describing Trace so feel free to post your version....
I use Photoshop CS5 and the NIK plugins after making initial adjustments to the RAW file in ACR.

This is where I ended up using Lightroom and Photoshop.


I realise you don't use Lightroom, but I believe you can make the same changes in CameraRaw through CS5 and the layout is very similar. So I've attached my workflow in LR.
I made the following global adjustments:


So tweaked the colour balance, added some contrast, pulled the shadows up a bit, and just dropped highlights a little to give me more scope for dodging without blowing the highlights.

I also put in some vibrance and then I wanted to bring out the green highlights in the mountain . So in Colour, chose a more yellowy green and punched the saturation and luminance a bit. I also went down to the Camera Calibration and made the green 100% saturated. I also wanted to sharpen those ridge details.

Then I played with the sky through a GND. Ended up the opposite to what I suggested; I dropped contrast and upped clarity a little.


Then I tried a bit of dodging and burning in the clouds to give more layering and depth to the mist.


As that ridge really acts as a nice leading line to draw the eye into the image, I wanted to emphasise it. So I wanted to lighten it and make it more prominent. So added another dodge adjustment with some saturation, along there too.

This was the image after LR adjustments:



I was pretty happy with that, but felt that some curve adjustments in PS could bring it out more. I use Tony Kuyper's luminosity masks. And did adjustments to the mids, lights and darks separately.


The Orton Lights effect can be nice on these misty sort of photos, IF you like that effect. I mostly tend to use it for waterfalls. It takes away some of the sharp details as it adds glow, so masking can help keep the details you want and add glow in other areas. This particular effect will make the mist soft and take away the definition... so again, depends on vision and personal preference.


That resulted in the image at the start of the post.

Almost the same outcome from the luminosity masks in Photoshop can be achieved in Niks Color Effex with the Dynamic Contrast. I use the slider under the control points to dial back the effect, as it is often much stronger than I want, but leave the actual sliders at the dynamic contrast defaults a lot of the time. And if you like the glow effect, try the Sunlight filter or Glamour Glow. I also added some warmth in Niks with the Skylight Filter that I didn't in PS. And seeing it here I prefer it without. Depends on the visualisation you have for the end image.


Hope this helps some. I was working with the downsized JPG so the amounts of adjustments with the raw file will be different. My vision may have been completely different from your own, but these are steps I would have taken to get some more depth in the clouds, add interest to the foreground and use light/dark to guide the eye into the image more.

Cheers
Trace

[Mike Buckley]

I suspect that the primary difference between Shane's and Trace's version has to do with a difference of artistic vision of what they want the outcome to be. Personally (not that it matters), I prefer Shane's version, partly because I tire of digital photography emphasizing more mid-tone contrast and tonal range than is necessary.

Even so, I admire Trace's ability and time spent to communicate how that vision is accomplished.

[ShaneS]

Thank you so much Trace...just finishing up work now and I will have a detailed look at this when I get home. I think that somewhere in between might be where I end up with this image but I really appreciate you showing me another possibility in PP.

I will post an edit when I have worked through your notes.

Mike, I too tire

of digital photography emphasizing mid-tone contrast and tonal range than is necessary

I often struggle to find a happy medium that works for me and sometimes find that the possibilities available in terms of the final look and feel of an image can be overwhelming. Having the tools and knowing what is possible in PP is a double edged sword in that regard so I am still adding tools to the toolbox and then trying to figure out when to deploy them.

This is where I think a "vision" comes in and mine is still a work in progress

[PhotoByTrace]

Hi Mike,
And that is always my hesitance in offering to do this, as we all have different visions for a scene and preferences in what we like. But to be honest, I liked Shane's image and wanted to play with it
Cheers
Trace

[PhotoByTrace]

Hi Shane,
Hopefully the workflow at least offers some different opportunities without being overwhelming. My vision for my images often changes after I put them aside for a while. I sometimes come back and wonder "what the hell was I thinking" and start afresh. Other times I know exactly and am happy and content.
Cheers
Trace

[Mike Buckley]

"what the hell was I thinking"

That's generally my reaction to my images when I review them on the computer the first time after downloading them from my memory card. I have come to the conclusion that it's best to assume that the devil made me press the shutter release.

[pnodrog]

That's generally my reaction to my images when I review them on the computer the first time after downloading them from my memory card. I have come to the conclusion that it's best to assume that the devil made me press the shutter release.

Thanks I was waiting for confirmation. It even happens to me with shots taken on a Sunday.