Subjecting to your prize prossession to professional scrutiny - Ouch!

[Donald]

After I returned from Yosemite, last October, I posted up something I was pleased with (Catherdral Rocks from Valley View, Yosemite). I produce it here.



I've recently joined The Photographer's Academy. There you can get professional feedback on your images.

"Very Ansel Adams by design, but not Ansel Adam in the blacks and greys. This photographer need to watch a film we did of Richard White talking about the zone system. It needs a deeper blacks and greys within the image. It as if the photographer is frightended of need to do stuff, which a real shame. Loving the design, loving the crop. Always beware of the getting it level.

But you need to learn to how nail that post processing. Your got some great landscape eye here but you don't have the post production off 'pat' "

I have the post production and did what he suggested:-



Why is the tree gone at the right hand side. I've had to lose it in order to get the picture straight.

[Wavelength]

Very much liked the image; foreground stones are more brightened in the second one; there is a visible improvement of quality

[Round Tuit]

I am no expert but for what it is worth, I prefer both the tones and the crop of your original.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm very confused that the black and grey tones are lighter, not darker, in the second image. That's confirmed by reviewing the histogram.

Regardless, it's enjoyable to see the image again and to realize that I like it every bit as much as the first time I reviewed it.

[billtils]

Now you've gone and done it Donald!!!

I liked the original a lot, and prefer it to the one processed according to the "expert" (who struck me as needing lessons on how to communicate in a constructive manner). However ... the edited version is probably closer to what would be my general taste in B&W but which I am trying to persuade myself should not also become a default choice when processing.

Bottom line - there's not enough in the reprocessed image to make me say "take the expert's advice Donald".

[tbob]

I prefer the crop in the original (which the expert did as well) The changed crop makes it hard for me to compare as they become two different images. I do think the expert opinion was a bit deficient in specifics, they could have narrowed the critique to specific areas rather than vague generalities on tone, blacks and whites. A bit pointless to have you watch a video unless the weak areas (in the their opinion anyway) are pointed out for you to learn from.

[ccphoto]

If I might be so bold as to suggest a mid-tone correction to the clouds, lowering the brightness of the rocks and giving just a tad more density to the blacks, especially in the water's edge and in the faces of the mountains (big rocks :-))

[Donald]

If I might be so bold as to suggest a mid-tone correction to the clouds, lowering the brightness of the rocks and giving just a tad more density to the blacks, especially in the water's edge and in the faces of the mountains (big rocks :-))

You may be so bold.

That's been an really good contrbution.

[JBW]

Point 1: the water is flowing from left to right. In the original the bush line middle left is almost horizontal and shows a bend in the river bank.

point 2 : the straightened shot has the bush line tilting up from left to right and indicating to me that the river should be flowing out from where the bush line meets the trees.

The original looks natural.

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed, was this image judged on a print or digitally? I ask because I can process a black and white for online viewing and feel comfortable with the results but if I print with my home computer I have to make adjustments for the blacks; otherwise my shadows will print out inky.

[Donald]

Nicely composed, was this image judged on a print or digitally? I ask because I can process a black and white for online viewing and feel comfortable with the results but if I print with my home computer I have to make adjustments for the blacks; otherwise my shadows will print out inky.

Critically assess from the digital file

[John 2]

Nicely composed, was this image judged on a print or digitally? I ask because I can process a black and white for online viewing and feel comfortable with the results but if I print with my home computer I have to make adjustments for the blacks; otherwise my shadows will print out inky.

The other variable of course, particularly for a digital image, is the ambient light. I sometimes find that an image that I have PP'd in the evening looks less well in the daylight of the following morning. I have said this before I know but one of the best pieces of advice I was given came from the head of the photographic faculty of my local Technical College (fellow club member). He advised (in the days of mainly prints) "stick it on the mantelpiece and live with it for a few days" and then see how you feel about it. I've always found that to be good advice and it raises two questions in my mind. Given that your mentor must have quite a few other photographers on his books, how long is he able to study your image for. To what extent was he judging your work against a common norm when you might have been trying to create/recreate a particular mood. I will admit to preferring the second but I was more than happy with the first. Perhaps sometimes it's worth applying the maxim I quote to my other half on occasion. Once you have bought what you want, stop looking in shop windows. You might just see something you like better when it's too late.

P.S.that was a bit of a rant.

[mugge]

Donald, I have read a bit about the zone system - very nice and, I am sure, very good. I am not so sure it needs to be followed though. I much prefer your first image. I firmly believe that it's the surprising and 'wrongly executed' elements which make a great picture. A beautifully executed Ansel Adams is beautiful to behold but a picture made by a 15 year old novice with a good eye may very well produce an exciting picture.
Cheers Ole

[Shadowman]

The other variable of course, particularly for a digital image, is the ambient light. I sometimes find that an image that I have PP'd in the evening looks less well in the daylight of the following morning. I have said this before I know but one of the best pieces of advice I was given came from the head of the photographic faculty of my local Technical College (fellow club member). He advised (in the days of mainly prints) "stick it on the mantelpiece and live with it for a few days" and then see how you feel about it. I've always found that to be good advice and it raises two questions in my mind. Given that your mentor must have quite a few other photographers on his books, how long is he able to study your image for. To what extent was he judging your work against a common norm when you might have been trying to create/recreate a particular mood. I will admit to preferring the second but I was more than happy with the first. Perhaps sometimes it's worth applying the maxim I quote to my other half on occasion. Once you have bought what you want, stop looking in shop windows. You might just see something you like better when it's too late.

P.S.that was a bit of a rant.

The judging method would be of interest but I doubt the critic would offer his or her method. You can try to understand a critic's tastes and shoot/edit towards another's tastes; however I think if you do so you'll lose a sense of your own tastes. Regarding the lighting where viewed, it does make a difference and I often view an image under different lighting conditions before making a final assessment. My current setup is that I'll edit from one room and my printer is setup in another; so I usually give myself some time before I actually see the output. Also, I read somewhere that black and white prints should be allowed to fully dry before viewing, one tip suggested placing a sheet of paper over the fresh print and applying a slight pressure (a flat object) while allowing to dry for at least twenty four hours.

[billtils]

An addition to my earlier comment on the professional feedback: I disagree with the comment "Always beware of getting it level" as specifically applied to your image. This is an uneven terrain, with water running downhill and vegetation and trees sprouting every which way they can. If you choose the only unconstrained vegetation as a reference point (the grassy looking growth sprouting from the rocks at about 1/8th of the way in from the left) then your original is level. Add that the suggested level "correction" turns a river into a lake (wrong country to be a loch) and it's your version that is correct.

[ccphoto]

Lovely thing about assessing someone else's work is that there is a tendency to allow your own workflow, your own ideology of the Zen of photography, etc. In other words, it's difficult to take you out of him (her).

In as much a pragmatic methodology as I could muster, I reassessed and made adjustments according to the guidelines Adams set forth in both his book's: The Camera, and The Negative, both prized possessions.

From previous visits to Yosemite, I am pretty sure Donald took this shot from approximately where the little icon is in the lower right corner which would put him shooting across Silhouette Creek close to where it intersects the Merced River. It is only important physically in regard to the flow of the water which, if I am correct is from left to right in a somewhat flat area of the creek.



The primary reason I gave the image a slight counter rotation is based on the Douglas Fir in the vertical blue-line axis. As a rule, though certainly not set in stone, Douglas Firs grow quite vertically, otherwise they could not reach the heights they do without falling over. I also set a 'somewhat" horizontal" plane at the base of the shrubbery and as I suspected, when I brought the tree into a vertical alignment, so came the horizontal into a proper axis.



As to tonal range, I used an expanded mid-tones luminosity mask and went through it using each of the RGB channels to best capture the "color" values. This made the image somewhat "muddy" in color so I added a B&W Adjustment Layer to return back to B&W. The largest adjustment was made to the green and red channels.

I also did a selection of the sky and rocks using "Select by Color Range" and adjusted the tonal range of the midtones as they seemed to have the least attention paid to them. Good blacks, pretty good whites by the mid values lacked dimension and contrast.



In the same selection, I was able to further mitigate the "lost" mid values to stay more aligned with the Blacks and Whites using a Levels Adjustment and augmenting that selection with a bit of a contrast adjustment.

Thus, the final image. Very little changed from the original image other than the rotation.

[billtils]

In as much a pragmatic methodology as I could muster, I reassessed and made adjustments according to the guidelines Adams set forth in both his book's: The Camera, and The Negative, both prized possessions.

Now that's what I'd call an objective analysis and commentary. Very well done Chris and thanks for taking the time and for posting.

[Donald]

Now that's what I'd call an objective analysis and commentary. Very well done Chris and thanks for taking the time and for posting.

Indeed. A very fine analysis and conclusion.

[ccphoto]

Donald: How close was I to guessing where you made the shot from? Of course I made my conjecture based on the middle rock being Half Dome and there are many domes in the park.

[plugsnpixels]

I do like Chris' final retouch the best. When first beginning to read this thread, I noticed the "crookedness" of the image before I had a chance to assess tones. Comparing the original to Chris' final, I like his opening up of the shadows a bit, but not as much as your second try.

But! When I edit my own photos of various subjects, I tend to pop the shadows and tame the highlights to even things out. There are some cases (such as this) where one might not want to go that far, to maintain the tonal drama.