The Falls

[Manfred M]

Bracketing is something that National Geographic Photographers did frequently when shooting with Kodachrome at ASA 25 which had little or no leeway in exposure.

Reversal films (slide films) all had terrible dynamic range versus what we get with modern digital cameras. If I remember properly we were looking somewhere between 4 - 6 stops. These days with the higher end cameras getting 14-stops at base ISO and with displays that show us the histogram when we shoot, this is generally not an issue.

Looking at the histograms Dan has displayed, we can see that we really don't have a dynamic range issue, other than possibly with the red channel in the shadow areas. When we see flat looking shots, the main issue is often contrast and most of us likely would like higher contrast.

If Bob's comment on his earlier road picture; the sky being muddy rather than blue applies here as well, then the quality of light could be a contributing factor. Haze and time of day could be contributing factors. This image was taken at around 10:00 AM, based on the EXIF data.

He also says he is editing in Lightroom, which does limit precise local refinements.

[DanK]

He also says he is editing in Lightroom, which does limit precise local refinements.

I agree with this, but I think it is a red herring in the current context.

Bob, I'm guessing that your expertise in editing is limited. Forgive me if I am wrong. But for that reason, I think it would be good to avoid raising issues that don't address the main problems in this image. That's why I responded to Richard's comment about bracketing. Bracketing is an important skill, even with modern cameras, but there is no indication that it is relevant to the problems with this image, and I thought it could lead you off on an unproductive digression.

I think this comment is also a distraction. It is certainly the case that Photoshop provides more control over local adjustments than does Lightroom, which is a primary reason I use Photoshop for many images. However, Lightroom has reasonably powerful, if somewhat less precise, capabilities for local adjustments, and the difference in the precision of those adjustments isn't a core problem with this image.

For example, Photoshop provides more control over burning and dodging, and sometimes that extra control is very helpful. However, it is quite easy to dodge and burn in Lightroom, and I often find those tools sufficient, particularly when I am not printing large.

Bob, if my assumption about your level of expertise in editing is right--again, sorry if it isn't--here's my suggestion. First, focus on the major issues with the image as a whole. These often include tonal range, contrast, vibrance/saturation, and sharpening. Decide what you want to change with respect to these. Lightroom offers good tools for all of these. Then, once you have the image as a whole roughly as you want it, turn your attention to areas within the photo. For example, increasing contrast might make some areas darker then you want. When you encounter those, you will need to make local adjustments. For the time being, I would simply do them in Lightroom. Once you get really proficient with LR and start feeling constrained by it, you can look beyond it. You may not always need anything else. I have won (very minor) prizes for images edited 100% in Lightroom.

[Manfred M]

He also says he is editing in Lightroom, which does limit precise local refinements.

I agree with this, but I think it is a red herring in the current context.

I understand where you are coming from, but don't actually agree. I get roped into fixing images by friends and family from time to time and in this context, I find that Photoshop, rather than Lightroom / ACR are my tool of choice simply because these images are much more complicated to fix due to their level in "camera craft".

In my view, Lightroom is a tool aimed at an audience with a good deal of photographic expertise and experience and the images coming out of the camera are "good" simply because the tools in it are quite limited. I suspect Adobe agrees with me because they have structured their PP tool offerings in three levels:

1. Amateur photographer - Photoshop Elements;

2. Retail photographer (portrait and wedding photographer) - Lightroom; and

3. Commercial Photographer / Graphic Artist - Photoshop.

[xpatUSA]

I'm still concerned about the "painterly" effect in Bob's workflow. What is the cause, I wonder?

It spoils the Falls shot each side of the actual water and appears to be one of those effects that won't "round trip" - similar to applying an excess of noise reduction and then trying to restore detail by sharpening ...

[DanK]

Manfred,

I think you are missing my point. The OP didn’t raise questions about the choice of software. He already uses Lightroom. My point is that he can fix every issue that has been raised here with Lightroom, so diverting his attention to other software diverts his attention from the issues people raised.

In another thread, we could discuss he pros and cons of alternatives. Frankly, I see no reason to bother with Elements. I find it fairly easy to teach novices with Lightroom, which unlike elements is software they won’t outgrow. However, my opinion about this is also a red herring for this thread.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SpiderBob]

Sorry for not replying but my computer went down last night its a holiday weekend here so can’t even get it in as the wife and I leave for Alaska on Wednesday

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I think you are missing my point. The OP didn’t raise questions about the choice of software. He already uses Lightroom. My point is that he can fix every issue that has been raised here with Lightroom, so diverting his attention to other software diverts his attention from the issues people raised.

In another thread, we could discuss he pros and cons of alternatives. Frankly, I see no reason to bother with Elements. I find it fairly easy to teach novices with Lightroom, which unlike elements is software they won’t outgrow. However, my opinion about this is also a red herring for this thread.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dan - I got your point, but I think you have hinted around where I am coming from and that deal's with Bob's overall skill level behind the camera as well as with the PP tools.

I've been in the situation a number of times where people have asked me for help with PP and when I looked at what they were doing, I suggested a refresher on using the camera first (which included a lengthy discussion on light). In a number of cases Lightroom was a far more complex tool than they were ready to deal with. I've also run into the situation where their camera was far too complex for their level of photographic knowledge. I ran into this a couple of weeks ago where someone was convinced that they had to shoot in manual mode, but didn't really understand what that meant.

I'm not questioning Bob's ability with the camera and with Lightroom; based on what he has posted so far, I'm not ready to make that call just quite yet.

[xpatUSA]

I'm still concerned about the "painterly" effect in Bob's workflow. What is the cause, I wonder?

It spoils the Falls shot each side of the actual water ...

Still concerned - although I appear to be alone ...

Actually it spoils the whole image according to a Value ** Histogram:



If a final image of mine had all those missing levels I'd trash it and start again with the raw original!

No disrespect intended, Bob, not everybody uses fancy GIMP histograms.

** Value as in HSV space where V is the greatest of the three RGB values. A luminosity histogram does not reveal missing levels so well, if at all ....

[Cantab]

Bob, I've read this thread with interest and have noted some recurring themes. As others have suggested, I think it would be helpful if you were to explain in some detail what editing you did in Lightroom to your RAW images. I think you'll then be more likely to receive specific comments about what could perhaps be done differently in your editing process. There's a lot of great assistance available here.

[Manfred M]

If a final image of mine had all those missing levels I'd trash it and start again with the raw original!

No disrespect intended, Bob, not everybody uses fancy GIMP histograms.

Would you have known that those values were missing without looking at the histogram, Ted?

If the answer is "no", why would it make a difference now?

I have yet to meet a photo judge or critic that looks at the histogram. The only thing they look at are the image and / or the "artist's statement". The rest doesn't matter...

[DanK]

As others have suggested, I think it would be helpful if you were to explain in some detail what editing you did in Lightroom to your RAW images. I think you'll then be more likely to receive specific comments about what could perhaps be done differently

This would be very helpful indeed. In addition, it would be helpful if you could post the original raw image somewhere that can handle files that size, for example, a dropbox folder.

If a final image of mine had all those missing levels I'd trash it and start again with the raw original!

No disrespect intended, Bob, not everybody uses fancy GIMP histograms.

** Value as in HSV space where V is the greatest of the three RGB values. A luminosity histogram does not reveal missing levels so well, if at all ....

Actually, in my experience, RGB histograms often show this, for example, if an image has a very restricted tonal range and you move the white and black points quite a bit. I have never noticed a problem visually in these cases.

[xpatUSA]

Manfred and Dan,

Of course missing levels don't jump off the screen at you. Nevertheless, the image in question and also the Bridge had clearly low gradation which, although un-commented by your good selves, warranted my further investigation. Dan, the image did not have a "very restricted" tonal range and the posted image had reasonable black and white levels - not perfect but not "moved quite a bit".

And in the GIMP, the luminosity histogram does not show missing levels but, like the scratch on your since re-painted Ferrari, you know it's there ...

One of my cameras has quite a low range of 'raw' values, about 3500, in spit of having 12-bit ADCs. So the raw starts out with say 4096-3500 = about 600 always-missing values. Of course, they don't show up in converted images on my 8-bit monitor and the images can be excellent. (And still some people lust for 16-bit ADC's in their cameras, go figure.)

Not only does my Falls histogram have missing levels but there is obvious patternation in the distribution of the levels, especially at the brighter end. But I suppose that too makes no difference as long as the final image looks OK.

I am reminded of over-saturated red flower images which look pretty, even though the petals are rendered bi-chromatic with no green values at all. Same lax criterion applies, if the appearance of the final output is OK then everything's OK. Only my picky eyes seem able to spot those tell-tale purples which didn't exist in the subject.

I do not subscribe to that 'final output' criterion: I prefer to start with a good raw image (sorry George) and do as little post-processing as possible. But then, I shoot for my own pleasure and am not a Pro.

[DanK]

the image did not have a "very restricted" tonal range

Right. As edited.

The mystery won't be solved unless we can see the raw file and get some notion of the edits done.

[Manfred M]

But I suppose that too makes no difference as long as the final image looks OK.

That is the way most images are assessed from rank beginner to "expert". Virtually no one looks at the original capture to assess the final image other than to understand that the raw material needed to create the final work is there. I suspect none of us would have looked at the piece of marble that Michelangelo started with when he carved the statue of David and thought too deeply about it.

Ansel Adam's original contact print of Moonlight, Hernandez, New Mexico certainly does not show its potential or what Adams saw in it when he made the capture.

I do not subscribe to that 'final output' criterion: I prefer to start with a good raw image (sorry George) and do as little post-processing as possible. But then, I shoot for my own pleasure and am not a Pro.

I think that most experienced photographers take the opposite viewpoint; it's all about the final output. Again, taking the Ansel Adams example, he made many versions of Moonlight (I seem to remember reading somewhere around 150) and each one was different. I have heard some people say they preferred his earlier versions while others love his later work.

In terms of the amount of post-processing, I think I would word it slightly differently than you. I do as little post-processing as possible to get the final image that I want. That can vary a lot, depending on the image and what I plan to do with it. A simple family snapshot posted to the web might be fine straight out of camera. If I am making a large print for exhibition or competition, I will spend a lot more time; sometimes measured in minutes, more often hours and sometimes many days. No two images are the same and require the same amount of work. In all cases, this represents the minimum effort I need to create the image I saw in my mind's eye when I first pressed the shutter release.