Landscapes

[Colin Southern]

Thanks for the clear explanation Colin, I have a pretty poor bandwidth here in central France (<1mbps), and not noticed any degradation of speed with these pages as against other image rich pages, this is a credit to how well the forum is administered.

Hi Rob,

No worries

I think people get different latencies around the world that isn't necessarily related to the speed they connect to their ISP. For me, the super threads can take 40 seconds or more to load the last page, whereas most pages (<40 posts) load in less than 10 seconds.

[Davidd]

Thanks Davidd for the suggestion that I adjust the 0EV version, but my dilemma here is that I really like the effect HDR has on water and skies, so, even if just to get that aspect of the image how I like it, I will still be using HDR when the need arises.

Sure. This also relates to the exchange between Colin and Lon. Perhaps the answer is to merge an HDR and a 'normal' version Come to think of it, I've seen that done with portraits, with the eyes and hair in extreme detail but the skin NOT looking 100 years old! (Ever seen HDR portraits? Not to be tried if you want to stay popular...!)

~ David

[NoCard]

This is my last go-round with this image, for now at least. Thanks to Colin for his help on it, and also thanks to Rob for posting his image and his feelings on hdr. I think for now I am with Rob in feeling that in some cases (this image included), even though you sometimes go through undoing some of the hdr effects on images that don't demand it from a dynamic range perspective, you can create a mood that would otherwise be unattainable. As my skills improve, there is the chance that I could change my mind about that, but should that happen I won't feel that I have 'taken the long way around' because the best way to learn is by doing, and not necessarily accepting or discarding things outright.

In this version of the image, I went though the single image hdr process again but with only half as much range as before, and with less strength and microcontrast. The other notable changes were using a dark linear gradient from the bottom to about 3/8 way up, and using a light touch of Topaz simplify instead of the heavier dose of the crisp preset in Topaz adjust that was used previously. Thanks again for viewing.

I was so impressed with what others managed to achieve with my river and "messy" trees, that I have taken what I have "learnt" and applied it to your image Lon (I hope your do not mind - I will remove it if you wish)

Whilst I am not in the same league as Antonio, I have used his method (I think) and practiced it on your image Lon.
I have not adjusted the composition, as that was not in question. I have only adjusted the colours, contrast, curves etc.

I de-saturated the yellow channel by 20%, and then de-saturated all channels by 5%, then added a shallow "S" to the curves, dodged in the darker elements of the clouds than burnt in the foreground trees and shadow areas.

Finally I increased the contrast very slightly.
I hope this version of your image does noy offend your eyes!



Original Version for comparison...



Lon - I hope you do not mind me practicing on your fine image, but mine are now to familiar to me for me to be objective.

[Lon Howard]

Lon - I hope you do not mind me practicing on your fine image, but mine are now to familiar to me for me to be objective.

I don't mind in the least Rob ... actually I encourage any and all to do the same because that's the best way to learn. So have at it and don't worry, it won't break! Actually, right now the image doesn't show on my end, just the Flickr advisory saying the image is currently unavailable. I wonder if others can view it?? I hope it comes up because now I'm anxious to see it.

[NoCard]

Actually, right now the image doesn't show on my end, just the Flickr advisory saying the image is currently unavailable. I wonder if others can view it?? I hope it comes up because now I'm anxious to see it.

Oops - Technical Hitch (= me! )

Should be visible now...

[arith]

[arith]

I think the powers that be should leave immediatetly if not sooner. this thread alone. It is honest and why the hell should I explain it, when ordinary folk like me, get ignored everywhere else because some person thinks I ain't interesting cos I didn't copy a style out of a boook, then claim it as my own.

If ya can't beat them, shoot em. Camera right. What happened to Katy, don't think about it.

[Katy Noelle]

I think the powers that be should leave immediatetly if not sooner. this thread alone. It is honest and why the hell should I explain it, when ordinary folk like me, get ignored everywhere else because some person thinks I ain't interesting cos I didn't copy a style out of a boook, then claim it as my own.

If ya can't beat them, shoot em. Camera right. What happened to Katy, don't think about it.

I'm still here.... and thanks for the huge belly laugh!

[Lon Howard]

Oops - Technical Hitch (= me! )

Should be visible now...

Thanks Rob,

Gotta run for now but I can see that you've been 'undoing the hdr effect' that Colin referred to, in that the shadows in the foreground have to be put back to add depth (for one thing). In this case, it appears that is necessary in order to give the viewer's eye a well-defined starting point to work it's way through the image from front to back. Exactly how much of the shadows to put back is the tricky part and my feeling is that is going the be different for each viewer. I would like to have a little bit more exposure in the foreground than you've shown, but it may be a case of wanting to eat your cake in addition to just looking at it - perhaps not achievable but I won't know until I work on it. I will get back to it later. Thank you.

[arith]

Cheers Katy; if ya can't beat them shoot em. That's what I say.

[NoCard]

Thanks Rob,

Gotta run for now but I can see that you've been 'undoing the hdr effect' that Colin referred to, in that the shadows in the foreground have to be put back to add depth (for one thing). In this case, it appears that is necessary in order to give the viewer's eye a well-defined starting point to work it's way through the image from front to back. Exactly how much of the shadows to put back is the tricky part and my feeling is that is going the be different for each viewer. I would like to have a little bit more exposure in the foreground than you've shown, but it may be a case of wanting to eat your cake in addition to just looking at it - perhaps not achievable but I won't know until I work on it. I will get back to it later. Thank you.

You are so right Lon, these kind of treatments can be so varied in what they can do to an image.
It is very much in the eye of the beholder. I personally use HDR processing methods quite a lot - but not for the true HDR reason, more because I like the side-effects the treatment brings to water and skies. (but that's just me!)

The higher the range in the original image eg, sunsets with strong shadows, shooting towards the sun and some night shots will bring out the real benefits of HDR treatment, when compared with SOOC and PP'd shots.

Here is an example of what I mean...
This is the 0EV of a Snail Seller (not a landscape I know )
It was taken in full sun, and the inside of his van in in deep shadow...



This is the HDR version of the same image...



I will be the first to say the HDR version does not look "real", but it somehow looks pretty close to what I saw on the day.

So, to me "Photomatix" etc are only tools, like polarising filters, ND Grads or "Big Stoppers".
If it gives you what YOU want - use it and make the best of it you can, don't listen to the naysayers!

[TobyMac]

This is a photo of a hard sandstone rock formation called "Die Teufelsmauer" translated it means the Devils wall, its in the central part of Germany called Harz Foreland and the entire "wall" runs from Blankenburg via Weddersleben and Rieder to Ballenstedt. This section is called Addlersklippen or "Eagle Crags"


Teufelsmauer5 by Tobias Weber, on Flickr

[Loose Canon]

This is the Glory Hole.

A spot in Arkansas USA close to the Buffalo National River and one of my favorite places on the Planet.

This shot was bracketed and subsequently processed using HDR techniques in Photoshop. My goal was to keep it as realistic as I could.

I thought I’d just toss it into the mix since HDR was being discussed.



Comments are, of course, always welcome.

[Lon Howard]

I will be the first to say the HDR version does not look "real", but it somehow looks pretty close to what I saw on the day.

So, to me "Photomatix" etc are only tools, like polarising filters, ND Grads or "Big Stoppers".
If it gives you what YOU want - use it and make the best of it you can, don't listen to the naysayers!

That's kinda the way I look at it too, Rob, although I'd rather not go so far as to represent them as naysayers, mostly because everyone is someone's naysayer, I think. I think I will go with saying that "one's preferred approach diverts from the one that I find most useful" (my Mom was a Libra, and I should have been .)

I agree that the hdr version of the snail seller doesn't look real, but neither did any of the alternatives that I tried (dodging, shadows & highlights, exposure adjustments, brightness sliders, etc. etc.). Maybe a fill flash would have produced a better result, but this is a truly difficult exposure challenge. I'm sure someone like Colin or that other guy named Rob could come up with something.

This is where I'm at on my own image. I'm trying to get by using gradients in order to avoid a more processed look so I increased the dark gradient from the bottom and added a dark gradient from both the right and left. Then just punched up the sky and burned slightly the two brightest small trees in the foreground. I think I'm getting closer to where I want to go with it but I'll go back and compare with yours and Colin's versions as well; then tweak some more. I think I'll also recompose but I don't want to make that drastic a change in the midst of the hdr discussion here.

This has been a great learning experience for me and thanks to you both for pitching in.

[Lon Howard]

This is the Glory Hole.

A spot in Arkansas USA close to the Buffalo National River and one of my favorite places on the Planet.

And not too far from my 'real' hometown in S.E. MO.

This shot was bracketed and subsequently processed using HDR techniques in Photoshop. My goal was to keep it as realistic as I could.

I thought I’d just toss it into the mix since HDR was being discussed.

Terry, would you mind telling us (well...me) exactly what we're looking at. I can't figure out what is causing the water to gush in such a compressed fashion through the hole. Or is that even water? Is that rock shale? It's very dramatic.

Edit - OK, I just googled it. Here's the link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/lo...lo-river.shtml
I will definitely be photographing the place sometime since I do get back to SEMO from time to time! Thank you for posting this!

[Loose Canon]

Hi Lon! And you are most welcome.

It’s a combination of water and light gushing through the hole that you are seeing, which gives some very magical effects. The rock is limestone. Typical for the area, this geology causes all kinds of formations, caves, undercuts, (such as the Glory Hole), sinkholes, and waterfalls. This day I made it in about two days after a good rain so it was running quite nicely. I’ve never seen the hole completely filled and it would take a deluge for that to happen, but I’m sitting on go to get in there when it does.

It is about a mile hike to the hole with tons of waterfall opportunities all the way down on the creek that feeds the hole which is Dismal Creek. Then below the hole the opportunities continue.

There are tons of potential sites to visit in the BNR area that involve a dayhike. More if you want to take an extended backpacking trip, and still yet more if you want to go boating (canoeing/kayaking). One such example that is best accessed by boating the Buffalo is Hemmed-In Hollow Falls. The highest sheer waterfall between the Rockies and Appalachians. Plus a lot more within a short drive of the Buffalo area. All will require a hike of some degree. There are not really any “drive-ups”. Try to come after we’ve had some rains in the Fall or in the Spring. All of the water features are rain dependent.

The “Twin Falls” on your link is actually better known as the Twin Devil’s Falls. At this point the Long Devils Fork and Big Devil’s Fork converge at this double waterfall then flow on into Richland Creek. This is considered one of the more difficult hikes in the state to get to the “Twins” and no less than two whitewater creek crossings to get there. There is another way in without the crossings, but is extremely difficult due to the lumber down from the last ice storm. It is well worth the effort.

The winter shot on your link, Hawksbill Crag (Whitaker’s Point) for obvious reasons, is one of the most outstanding vistas anywhere along with the crag itself. The cropped landscape aspect of that shot really doesn’t do justice to the height and scope of the crag. A relatively easy hike in but a little tricky to find the trailhead, as is the Glory Hole’s trailhead. These along with a couple more points of interest tossed in can easily be done in a weekend.

He mentions Big Bluff, which is on the river itself and is easily one of the most treacherous (and steep) hikes in the state. Sometimes the trail is only a 3-4 foot wide ledge against a sheer bluff and with a sheer drop should you make a misstep. But a beautiful vista that includes the Buffalo River itself.

There are many more spots to visit as well. You could stay out there having fun and shooting for weeks if you’ve the time and inclination! In fact, in October we are planning to do another 10-day hiking/shooting tour of the area.

I’ll be doing my raindance!





Hawksbill Crag (not one of my fave shots!)



Hemmed-In Hollow Falls-

[Lon Howard]

Thanks for the info on BNR, Terry. My interest is definitely peaked. As the for images themselves, I very much prefer the two Glory Hole images included with your last post over the one in your original post. The original one is a little too dark in the foreground with a lot of shadow clipping behind the gushing water, to have the impact the other two do. Also, the foreground in the original one might be a little more processed/detailed for my taste but it could be just the way it appeared. The last two images really capture the stunning blend of water and light in the hole that is not apparent in the first one. The last one in particular shows that, in addition to having a more natural looking feel to the wet rocks surrounding the landing spot for the water.

The original one does have something the others don't however, and that is the sense of scale; showing the obvious forest floor and surrounding natural light on the surface above the limestone.

To get a feel for what I am describing, I just dodged the shadow-clipped part here; but also burned the big slick rock in the foreground and also the small forested part at the top to tone down their distracting elements. Lots of ways to do that of course.

One interesting aspect is the different angles and apparent volumes at which the water gushes through the hole - I guess related to the differing speed of the water flow in Dismal Creek. Very nice images, Terry.



Edit: Now that I've seen it here, the dodging on the shadow-clipped portion went a little overboard, IMHO.

[Vandenberg]

was standing in a German bunker on the coast of Normandy

[Katy Noelle]

was standing in a German bunker on the coast of Normandy

Funny! It, somehow, reminds me of a "photo-clip" from a movie from the '70s....it tells a story!

Please, say that you know what I mean...

[Vandenberg]

i know what you mean katy
most people say it looks like a old French movie clip
shot it at Omaha beach, here you dont see the suffering that was going on there
no tanks bunkers and crosses with the text, here rest in honored glory a comrade in arms known but to god
which i have seen there a lot

thanks katy