Colvin Run Mill in wintertime -- Take 2

[Mike Buckley]

Yesterday we had a small ice storm, so I went to Colvin Run Mill and posted a few photos. Today we had a little bit of wet snow, so I returned. The snow and light today were better than the ice and light of yesterday.

[ShaneS]

I really like the light and the composition of the second shot Mike. The waterwheel image feels a bit cramped to me but I love the dusting of snow of the wheel and the fence posts above and to the rear of it.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Shane!

What seems cramped to you about the waterwheel seems like a wonderfully tight frame to me. I plead guilty to liking tight framing sometimes to a fault.

You might be interested to know that the fence that you mentioned is actually a wooden trough that is used to divert water from the canal to the waterwheel when they are running the mill.

[ShaneS]

What seems cramped to you about the waterwheel seems like a wonderfully tight frame to me. I plead guilty to liking tight framing sometimes to a fault.

I am guilty of this too Mike and maybe I am projecting my attempts to see the broader view onto your image here but I will defend my position on this one by saying I want to see just a bit more room at the top and on the front side of the wheel in this image. I do like the tight view overall and think that the angle of the shot is great in that it allows the viewer to see both the front of the wheel and the great structure of the spokes that support it.

We can agree to disagree on this and I would not my being put in my place by others who care to comment.

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

I like both of these the first especially because I have a thing for old timber.

One question, on my monitor which I stress is not calibrated it appears there is a loss of detail in the shadow areas. A specific area I see is between the upper triangles of the wheel support struts. I ask this as I adjusted my monitor last week from it's default setting and wondering if I have gotten it too dark?

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Shane: I had actually intended more space to be on the right of the waterwheel. However, while my primary camera is in the second shop waiting to be repaired (you remember that story ) I used my wife's camera, which does not have an electronic level built into it. Despite that I tried very hard to frame the image level in the capture, I didn't and lost the area to the right when I leveled it during post-processing. I limited the space at the top partly because of an obtrusive window that would have been distracting for me.

Grahame: Your monitor is probably fine, at least with regard to the area that you mentioned. I knew that area would be a problem when I captured the image because there seemed to be no detail in that area of the scene. I tried to pull any detail out during post-processing but was unsuccessful. I've become rather confident in my ability to pull detail out of bright areas, such as the snow in this scene, but I haven't yet learned to do the same with dark areas, if indeed it's possible.

[tbob]

I suspect that baring HDR you would have a hard time getting the full range on a snowy scene with shadows inside the wheel. Doesn't bother me a bit as I expect deep shadow on that part of the wheel. More important to have snow detail

[John 2]

......... Doesn't bother me a bit as I expect deep shadow on that part of the wheel. More important to have snow detail

Same here but if it helps for future reference, I tend to use the Shadows/Highlights tool in PS (if you use it) to see whether the shadows have recoverable detail without distorting the tonal content. If not then it's a lost cause anyway. But as Trevor says it's not that important in this version of the first image. I like both of these from a compositional view point slightly more than the first batch. The inclusion of the front of the wheel is good in the first image (pity about no icicles). The framing of the tree and the fact that the fence is not quite so intrusive in the second gives the mill more prominence. A couple of very nice mono images Mike.

[Wavelength]

Nice images

[Mike Buckley]

Ah ha! After giving this some more thought, I adjusted that dark area we're discussing using the Curve tool in a configuration that doesn't come close to anything I have ever done in the past. I applied it to the color version and then fine tuned it in the monochrome version.

Special thanks to Grahame for getting the discussion going.

John: I use Capture NX2, which was indicating that none of the area we are discussing is missing detail. That's what motivated me to give it another try; if the detail is there, surely there would be some way to bring it out.

Please let me know what you folks think.


Photo 1 Revised

[Mike Buckley]

The more I think about my use of the Curve tool to make this change, the more I realize how intuitive it is. It makes me want to kick myself (I'm actually not coordinated enough to do that) for not thinking of it ages ago.

For anyone who might have been as seriously challenged as I was about bringing out the shadow detail, you might be interested in the configuration of my Curve tool shown below. This is the adjustment that fine tuned the underside of the waterwheel in the monochrome version after I lifted the detail there by applying a less aggressive version of this curve to the color version. This fine tuning is set to Screen mode and its opacity is about 80%.

If your software doesn't allow you to apply anchor points to control the exact shape of the curve, you may not be able to shape the curve this way.

[Mike Buckley]

the fact that the fence is not quite so intrusive in the second gives the mill more prominence.

That makes sense to me. For me, both versions in the other thread are photos of the fence and a complementary mill. This version is a photo of the mill and a complementary fence.

[deetheturk]

Well captured Mike,I especially like the revised version of the wheel.

Cheers David

[Stagecoach]

Hi Mike,

At least I know my monitor is near enough

I have recently started using curves with Elements using a plugin that gives me control points and have been experimenting. Prior to this I always used the 'Shadows/Highlights' tool which if I use on this latest image version shows that there is still a vast amount of detail that can come out of the shadow areas if wanted.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

I could also get considerably more detail using the Curve tool, Grahame. To my mind, we see very little detail in the shadows when we are at a scene. It's rare that I want a photograph to show significantly more detail than what we can see at the scene and this particular photo is no exception.

Another way of looking at it (no pun intended) is that I could have placed a speed light inside the water wheel (it wasn't moving) and lit up the inside of it to reveal all sorts of detail. I could emulate as much as possible that look just using post-processing software. However, I wouldn't want to do that.

This isn't a matter of documentary accuracy for me. Instead, it's a matter of style; it's an outdoor scene not aided by man-made light and I like that style whether I'm at the scene or am viewing a photo of the scene.

Thanks again for a great discussion!

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

As you know B&W is an area I'm attempting to learn and progress with at the moment and appreciate very much that there are styles that some use or prefer hence my comment, if wanted.

Other than the generally followed road that there should be some detail in the shadows (no large areas of 0.0.0) I'm finding it quite interesting in that when it comes to skies, even if what we saw had very little detail and contrast the consensus seems to be to pull out and exaggerate as much detail as possible?

My learning continues.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

when it comes to skies, even if what we saw had very little detail and contrast the consensus seems to be to pull out and exaggerate as much detail as possible?

You're probably thinking of the discussion that took place in your thread about your beautiful photo of the person taking the long walk home. In that photo, the sky was an important part of the image and, unlike the underside of the water wheel, could have been very dramatic or plain in real life. So, I think people liked your revised version of the sky better not only because the increased variation in tonality is more interesting but because people are also used to seeing skies that look like your revision.

On the the other hand, if the sky in your photo had been playing the role of negative space, you would want it to have very little tonal variation, perhaps even less than in your initial version.

My point is that the decision to provide increased detail or not has a lot to do with the particular circumstance. The shady underside of a water wheel is a very different circumstance than an open sky. So, the differing factors might lead to very different decisions about whether to increase, maintain, or decrease detail.

Make sense? I look forward to seeing other thoughts about this.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mike,

I think you have a good balance in the revised version - just enough (detail) and not too much.

Cheers, Dave