Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Taking: Survey the overall scene; decide what the image is 'about' --an entirely different matter than than deciding on what the 'subject' is-- then seeing that a single shot won't accomplish what had been decided upon, recognize that a multi-image panorama is the logical way to proceed. Full frame camera, 24mm setting using 24-120 mm zoom lens. (Had there been less snow and a less challenging approach, I'd have brought other lenses, but that was not the case, so all I brought was the one body and a single 'do your best considering the circumstances' lens.) Spot meter highlights and shaddows, take into account the fact that a single image will not include all of what had ultimately decideded upon, recognize that a series of images will need to be shot --and that they'll be shot hand-held--, and that there will be a mix of relatively close (3 or 4 feet) nearground elements plus elements further away, some of which will go beyond the depth of field afforded by the lens at close focusing distances and out to infintiy' (clouds and sky). Decide upon overall exposure (which in this instance, was 1/50th @ f/16 @ ISO 64), then shoot the seven overlapping exposures that have been pre-determined, 'overshooting' on both the left and right margins knowing that a portion of each of will later be cropped to produce the composition (a pair of shallow, horizontally placed diagonals ( a '>' shape that enters and dominates from the left (redrock) and a '<' shape (trees/greenery) that enters and dominates from the right in such a way that the diagonals overlap more or less equally (nature rarely conforms to our wishes; however much or however little we shift our shooting position, we're usually forced to conform to the dictates and placements of Nature), and these two overlapping compositional forms produce an ill-defined center 'diamond' center where the 'subject' --in this case, Faux Falls-- lies. Which is all a very long, compound/complex sentence. Sentences, photography, and life --and the complexities of reality-- can be simplified to some extent, but doing so tends to fall outside the parameters of my general aesthetic.

Making: After importing everything that had been shot this day --here and elsewhere-- on the card into Lr, the first of this particular seven image sequence is islolated. The first of the image sequence is dialed in with Lens Correctons and the software removal of Chromatic Aberrations, and slight highlight and shadow adjustments are made. Those settings are applied to the other six images, and the seven images are merged into a panorama. Things look good generally, but even though everything lies within light/dark parameters, it is not quite right quite yet. Though there are a variety of ways to get closer to what I'm after, I take the short-cut of exporting the overall image to Aurora HDR. At the most basic of the native settings, highlights/shadows have been equalized to an expected and intended extent, but --in an expected sort of way based on experience-- the image had acquired increased levels of saturation and slight hue shifts, and that is as intended. Because its really not an issue; its been my intent all along that saturation, vividness, contrast levels and color settings/parameters, degrees of local or global hue, intensity, sharpness, etc. would be further modified to taste fairly easily after the image had been returned to Lr. Having done just that, the next set of modification are rather more difficult to describe; suffice it to say that 15 or 20 separate local modifications were made to select portions of the image (a bit of rock here or a bough of a tree there, etc), most of which were done selectively using either a circular (usually stretched into an oval of some kind) radial filter or a linear graduated filter. In all, it took two or three times to write the above than it took to make any of the adjustments I chose to make the image posted here.

More could be said, not the least of which might be 'is it a "good" image.' Some would say its too busy, others might say otherwise. Some might question the inclusion of various of the elements, and believe a different crop might be somehow better. Some might look at it in the most literal of ways ('where is this? I'd like to go there too!), while others might look at it and think, 'I only shoot birds or antique thimbles or my grandkids, so I'm really not interested,' and that's fine too. I'm relatively aware of what my overall aesthetic is, and coming as close to that ideal is what matters most to me.

I am open to critique/criticism, but I stand behind the image as posted.

(Download)

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

I am loving it - wish I was there kind of feeling, beautiful rock and scene. My only crit has to do with the ice to the right of the falls with the grey/yellow tint. I am wanting that area to be more reflective/brighter/cleaner/something (I know not what - maybe give the ice more of a blue tint). It catches my eye immediately - and with the falls I would call it the focal point.

For what it is worth, that area (to me) is worth treating as an isolated subject and is worth shots by itself - the contrast of the rushing water against the ice. Anyway, thanks for sharing this very cool work.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Reasonable points both, and thanks for taking the time.

Best I can say with regard to the tint/reflectance of the ice is: it looks in the image like what it looked like in reality -- a coating of ice over warmly hued rock that lightly shines through. It could be brightened or blued or be made to appear cleaner or any of a variety of things, but if it were made to look more or less indistinguishable from the water falling alongside, would that not be a little incongruous?

Your second point is good, too. Of course, to have positioned myself closer or to have used a longer lens as means to somehow isolate the falls and the ice --in effect, to remove the two from their place in their world-- would have been to make and post an entirely different photograph. It might be 'good' (interesting/eye-catching/whatever to some) or it might be 'not-so-good' (uninteresting/etc, to others), but it wouldn't be the scene I saw, shot, or made. And that other photograph would not convey 'the larger picture' I tried to portray.

It might seem odd that I placed my post --the image and the words-- here in the Post-Processing section. Its not a composite, no texture layers were applied, the colors and contrasts and the like are more or less naturalistic, and the image could have simply been considered 'processed' rather than anything more. Whether or not that might be accurate is not for me to say, but considering the number and degree and manner of the local adjustments that were made, its difficult for me to consider it a 'straight' non-manipulated shot either.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

your image is a beautiful study of contrasts and textures - the reds against the blues - the ice and water and stone - the shadows and the brights. Regarding post processing, you are stepping into a dark side of things. And like a painter with oils, what you saw might not be what ends up on the canvas. Rather what you SAW comes forth - not always the same thing. It is always a tug of war between reality and vision. Even without post work, we cheat reality by selecting/creating composition and playing with the exposure triangle.

Anyway, not meaning to ramble on and on but rather to affirm that the only person that needs to be pleased is YOU - LOL. And in pleasing yourself, you have pleased others too - I think it is a wonderful shot.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

So you knew that some nosy guy like me was going to ask [my question is in Take Two]. Very thorough explanation, Jim. Thanks.

EOB Photo

Kudos on your artistic ability and creativity. But overall I'm not a big fan of the shot. I know its HDR and for me most of it looks overcooked. I am going off the download end result. Split the image into 5 horizontal pieces. The first left panel looks very good. The other four are overcooked. Hopefully its the software and you could adjust each layer by adjusting the opalescence.

As photographers, we are all subject to the equipment we use and then the skill of using the equipment. Its easy for us to overstretch the ability of the camera and try to correct it in post processing. I believe you are a good photographer. Your equipment is designed for closeups and the more you stretch it for far away landscapes, the trickier it becomes.

Good luck in your endeavors.

jimcrna Loc: indiana/florida

Cany. I like the shot for multiple reasons but what I like the most is your explanation. That is what us hobbyist/enthusiasts need from the pros here on uhh..Thanks much for the academics along with the photo.jim

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I like it, and thanks for not going “cotton candy” with the waterfall.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for offering these insights into how you take and make a photograph, Jim.

Regarding jimcrna's comment, I think there is an "untapped" market (lurkers?! ) of UHH members interested in learning from experienced amateurs and pros.

The format of UHH doesn't really lend itself to in-depth conversations of this sort, however, which is why I've sometimes suggested mentoring - for novices, reach out to someone whose work you admire; for the more experienced, reach out to offer assistance.

Perhaps if we have more topics such as yours, folks will become more involved in discussions that help them advance their own interests and goals.

Your time is much appreciated!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

First off, let me say this is beautiful. And I really enjoy your verbiagae about it. My first thought was that I wouldn't be there when there was snow on the ground (although it is pretty in your image). But, if there's no snow, there would be creepy-crawlies that I detest. So which would I prefer encountering: snow or snakes? Ay, that's a question.

I've never been successful with composites or merging several shots. In fact, my LR program normally says it can't merge the images I deliberately shot to be merged! I would have shot the scene probably in one frame, but as you presented. I would probably have also taken a shot zoomed in a bit. It's a bit busy, but nature can be busy. What I really like is that your presentation to us, according to you, is how it was presented to you. I like that.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

Thanks for the setup info Jim. I posted on the original without the setup, but this clears up some of my questions on how you got this result.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Jim, I always enjoy your pictures and your explanations of them, especially your compositional decisions.

As for the editing (making) part, I'm glad I'm not the only one who travels the convoluted route of applying certain edits in LR both before and after using a pixel level editor (in my case Photoshop but with side trips into various Topaz, Lumosity, and NIK plugins). The cobbling together of multiple images into a base file is also something I do on occasion but you're much better at it.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Thanks for weighing in, Paula. Frankly, I wish you'd do so more often.

Re: any 'explanations' I might make.... they're woefully insufficient. Its difficult enough to provide a cookbook style exegesis of 'how' something might be done, but its impossible to provide a cogent 'why' it needs to be done, much less the subjective reasoning that led you to seeing and saying to yourself that 'this bit here needs more contrast or that group of shadows there need to be brought down or the cool color in this corner needs a correlate in that opposite corner to maintain equilibrium. I expect you know what I mean....

I bounce around a lot between Lr and Ps or any of a variety of other editors. Sometimes, I bounce an image back and forth between different computers because I have some 32 bit applications/plug-ins on another machine that won't work on my 64 bit 'primary' workstation. Years ago, I'd come across some sort of freebie software that allowed you to make and save your own plug-ins. The sky was the limit, once you got the hang of how to define parameters and what-not. I'm sorta proud of one set I'd made, even though I seldom use them these days. Named the group of three or four of them after the Evening Program slide program I used to do at Arches: the folder is called 'The Shaman's Paintbox.'

Whatever. You comment so seldom --and virtually never post an image-- and that's just not right.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Aw Jim! You know where most of my stuff is posted. I'm doing a little more on UHH while I have more time due to winter doldrums and weather. Got lots of friends here, including some who taught me most of what I know.

Explanations are interesting because they let us see into the process of how other artists think and work. I agree it isn't a cookbook equivalent. It shouldn't be, because how one of us visualizes, captures, renders, presents a scene could/should be different from how another of us may do it. One may want to emphasize the movement of that water in your shot, for instance, while another may choose to freeze it. One may want to play down the contrast while another may want to maximize it. One may want only a certain portion of the scene in focus while another may want the whole thing as sharp as possible. Some of these things are achieved in capture and some in the digital darkroom. And for me, lots of that stuff may morph as I work out an image.

For me, images are not so different from writing. Anyone who has written fiction knows that past a certain point your characters will begin to take on a life of their own and do things that you didn't plan or expect. Images do that too. So I never just capture a scene one way. I do try to capture the file I think will be the best starting point for what I think, at that moment, that I may want to do with it. But I also capture other versions, so that if the image begins to demand something different than I thought of in the heat of the moment, I can follow it wherever it wants to go.

Self-made plugins? Sounds fun!

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

I really like the comparison of working an image to writing. Some write history, some write poetry, some write fantasy - the end results can be very different in purpose but the process of writing or of building an image can have much in common though the results and purposes can differ so much.