The 2000 year old man

[Jimr1961]

[Shadowman]

Nicely exposed.

[IzzieK]

Good exposure...I would have thought you had used evaluative metering on this one.

[JBW]

very nicely seen.

[tao2]

Hi Jim,

Ah think a couple of steps tae the right would've separated the tree from the branches on the right and the background foliage, bringing the tree into sharper relief. Also think that centre weighted rather than spot would've lightened the trunk without overexposing the rocks.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jim,

I tend to agree with Boab's suggestion to shoot from a little further to right, to avoid the overlap of subject tree with that closest to its right.

A bigger issue for me is the magenta/green false colour patches on all the foreground rocks, caused by uncorrected CA (Chromatic Aberration).

I don't know how, or even if, RAWTherapee can handle CA, but most RAW converters can.
In ACR/LR it is quick and easy to fix.


Apologies to Jim in advance for 'going off on one' below
Also note this discourse was merely triggered by a couple of comments above and is not directed at those members personally.

Since it was shot in Manual mode, the method of exposure metering is largely a moot point from my point of view - when I shoot in 'Manual' it is usually because I have decided I know better than the meter and so I am not slavishly adjusting exposure to zero out the reading. If I want to 'follow the meter', I'll use one of the semi-automatic '???-priority' modes instead and let the camera do it for me, but even then I might apply an offset with Exposure Compensation (EC), based on what the colour histogram shows after a test exposure.


Either way, I consider the use of the different metering options (e.g. average, centre weighted or spot) are, or should be, in the realm of personal preference (I use centre weighted).

This is analogous to thinking of distances in either mm/cm/metres or inches/feet - whichever I (or you) use doesn't alter the distance between two points and if we need a bit less; say an inch or 25.4mm (or 2.54 cm), it doesn't affect the length of a bit of string each of us might cut.

The amount of light is the amount of light, the correct exposure is the correct exposure, whether we measure the light across the whole frame, bias that reading towards the middle of it, or just a small spot of it, makes no odds if we apply a different sized offset to each to arrive at the correct exposure for the amount of light on the subject, which is best reviewed on the colour histogram/blinkies.

I raise it only to suggest to newbies that (I feel) can get too 'hung up' on which metering mode they should be using - I remember I did, until 'the penny dropped' that it really didn't matter, as long as the first exposure is close enough, if time permits a review of the colour histogram and a re-shoot, that's by far the best way to do it (IMHO) - I prefer this to bracketing. When time doesn't permit, well I guess bracketing is one way, but experience and being familiar with your kit goes a long way - and (I feel) sticking to one metering mode will allow you to develop a feel for whatever EC might be required for a given scene than keep chopping and changing the reference point by choosing different metering modes. Once you've got the hang of it, then yes, based on experience, if you understand how it all works and can appreciate that say, spot, will give more consistent exposures, then change it.

It is exceptionally rare that I'll change from centre weighted metering to something else, I'd only do so if I was shooting a very specific subject against say, a varying scene/background and felt that due to sun/shade issues, using spot metering and a semi-automatic mode, rather than Manual exposure, would give me better results of subject exposure when time was of the essence (e.g. shooting wildlife as it takes flight).

For a shot of a tree that's already been there 2000 years, I'd feel it can afford wait a bit longer while I do a test shot and review the histogram before setting the exposure for the 'final' shot. The review element of this method of working also gives the benefit of possibly seeing the overlap and correcting it before moving on.

Well, that's how I prefer to work - others will no doubt prefer their own familiar ways and that's fine.

For anyone new to photography, I'd recommend setting metering to centre-weighted (or whatever your camera manufacturer calls it) and leaving it there for the first year or more of shooting, it will allow you to develop your 'exposure compensation' judgement (what's right compared to what the meter said was going to be right) far quicker.

Cheers, Dave

[Jimr1961]

thanks all. I didn't notice the CA. Shame on me. I can correct that. I was quite disappointed with this whole shoot. I really need to re-evaluate how I hike. Pumping out 15 to 20 miles / day leaves me always hurried to take the shot and keep moving. My photography will never improve that way. I need to do less miles per day and add layovers so I can day hike an area without the heavy pack and explore possible shots and the best place to set-up for them, then come back during the golden /blue hours for the shoot.

As it is, I've been shooting fast during whatever light conditions are available when I happen to be there. Fine for travelogues which I will continue to take, but no good if my aim is to capture the shots that really speak.

[Dave Humphries]

I can appreciate your struggle to reconcile hiking vs shooting Jim.

That's some distance to cover too!

[Jimr1961]

O.K. after reading everyone's C&C, I further processed.
Rawtherapee:
raised exposure
Compressed highlights a bit
recovered shadows a bit
added a bit of micro contrast to help counteract the above 2
removed CA
processed as 16 bit .tif

Gimp 2.9 (16 bit)
cloned out the branches camera right
processed as 8 bit .jpg

Re-submit for C&C



I think I might clone out a bit farther down camera right.
I may try to recover some of the rock detail at the bottom as well.

[JBW]

the good news is that the tree is seriously much better. Question; is there some way to lower the brightness of the rocks?

[Jimr1961]

This is about as good as I can do

[JBW]

This is about as good as I can do

looking better. I use gimp 2.8. Sometimes with a shot like this if I desaturate and invert then use the layer as an overlay I can darken the background without messing with the main object. Just a thought.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jim,

That last version is better.

[Jimr1961]

Getting better. Thanks. I'll try creating some luminosity masks as Brian suggests and see if I can bring out the rocks a bit better. I have a script somewhere for Gimp that creates them on the fly. I corrected it to function in 2.9, but wasn't able to locate it last night. I can always do it the long way if I need to.

[Jimr1961]

"This is about as good as I can do" I think I'll retract that remark. I found a nice GUI controlled script in the Gimp plugin registry that will create luminosity masks much easier and rather than create 9 masks, it allows you to choose the mask you want with some controls.

I also learned last night that the CA was created by my pp. When I work on Shadow/Highlight controls in exposure tab, I can choose to use a sharp mask. It does a more detailed job, but can create color shifts like the green around the rocks. Since the sharp mask did a better job of pulling down the highlights and bringing out detail, I chose to use the sharp mask and adjust out the CA.

I'll play with it more over the weekend and see what I can do about the rocks.

[Jimr1961]

O.K., I think this one is better. What do you think? I initially added a layer and created a luminosity mask to try and bring down the rocks a bit, but I found them greying out. Since the raw file was a bit under exposed, I brought it back into Rawtherapee and brought down the exposure a bit, then brought that into Gimp as a layer, then created a light luminosity mask and hard masked everything except the rocks. I let the luminosity mask do the rest. I think it looks good. If the rocks would look better a bit lighter, I can back off on the opacity of the masked layer a bit.

[Wandjina]

It now looks a whole lot better than the first photo, Jim

[JBW]

The rocks have colour, texture, tones. Your hard work and experimentation have paid off.

[Jimr1961]

Thank you all for your help and comments. It feels good to pull a few shots out of what was a very disappointing set. I may pull up the saturation a bit, but otherwise, I think it is now something worth sharing.

[JBW]

Thank you all for your help and comments. It feels good to pull a few shots out of what was a very disappointing set. I may pull up the saturation a bit, but otherwise, I think it is now something worth sharing.

Sorry Jim but now you are most definitely wrong. Before it was not worth submitting to a magazine but it was always worth sharing here. This is not a group dedicated to perfection. If it was the pages would be empty.

This is a group dedicated to a shared passion and a desire to help others to explore their passion in ways they would not be able to without the combined experience, knowledge and yes, even wisdom that is to be found within this group. Shots such as the 2000 year old man help all of us to move further along our chosen paths.

My Lordy but this is turning into a sermon! Enough already.
B.