abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Hi Chuck. We are pretty much on the same page. My point with the white balance is get it "right" so you see what it was and then, if you wish, change it. I started working in the darkroom in 1959, first with black and white and then color. As a chemist, I miss the darkroom. As a photographer, I do not. Digital allows you to work a photo like you never could. Do not feel guilty about that or not capturing the "perfect" picture in the camera.

I did not look at your metadata but this shot is made for raw. It gives you so much more editing latitude.

Do not knock serendipity. How many photos owe their beauty or greatness to it?

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks! I do like that crazy color. I think I remember Kodachromes looking a little like that, esp. if you underexposed a little for richer saturation, which many workers did routinely (Pete Turner, Jay Maisel…).

I couldn't get lower. I was standing at the rail of the sundeck of a house about 1-1/2 stories above the ground. If I went down to the lawn it would have been too low, plus I think I might have lost a lot of the frame. The fact is that I wasn't really thinking that much about it. It was a then brand-new camera, a Nikon "Coolpix" (absolutely HATE that STUPID name!) P7000, and I was just looking for anything, anything to play with it, and I saw the light, and I stepped outside, and I was just waiting for the sunset to be just so, just to play with the "sunset" mode, and along came the kayak. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: If he hadn't been there I'd never have posted the shot anywhere 'cuz it would have been a truly nuthin' shot of just another meh sunset. :lol: :lol:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I completely agree about white balance. I'd venture that 98, maybe 99% of the time I shoot with normal white balance, or manual light balance usually obtained from the nearest handy white surface (I don't like to carry a lot of stuff—did too much of that for too long and don't wanna no more). :mrgreen: The trouble with so many of the nifty whoopee scene modes they build into cameras these days is that if you use one, you're pretty much stuck with it. One of the things I love love love about Digital is that you can go back and "Photoshop-the-bejeebers-out-of-it." :D Black and white, for example: if you shoot it B&W in the camera, it's great for discipline and seeing (yay), but then if you think, Gosh I wish I'd made that in color—well, too bad. (On the other hand I rarely convert to B&W and I should more. I tend now to see only in color, which is a little weird since I have Dektol and hypo in my veins, 50 years worth, and my dad was a full-time pro. I will always love the tang of acetic acid.)

I have not been shooting RAW. I know I probably should, and eventually probably will, but I'm really very satisfied with what the camera does with a Jpeg. If you look at the original of the shot that I posted later—download it and the finished version and toggle between them—I'm not at all unhappy with the finished version. You'll see that I did lighten the kayaker up, but I was very careful (for me anyway) not to overdo it. I like it to look kinda sorta real, not too-too bright. I learned very early (2007) that the trick was to expose for the highlight and develop for the shadow—the exact opposite of the way we were taught. I think of the digital file, Jpeg or RAW, more as a transparency than a negative. Files, even RAW files are much less tolerant of overexposure than negative films were. (With your experience I bet you learned, as I did, how to "flash" down a recalcitrant highlight on the easel with a dimmed flashlight! But a blown digital highlight is. just. blown.) :D I will sometimes bracket, but not a lot. I mostly check my histograms to be sure I'm not clipping important highlights and let the shadows "fall," confident that I can open them as much as I want—within reason—later. I don't want muddy shadows, and I'm sure that if I ever get into RAW I will love it, but I'm just happy now. And happy is all I wanna be. :D :shock:

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Chuck, pop for the Expodisc. It is so small and reliable and you never have worry about finding something "white" or "gray". You are too experienced to leave it to luck.

The odor was as much sulfurous acid from the sodium sulfite.

I do not want to tell you that you have to shoot raw but I will say that they give me so much more color detail than jpg's. If you like your jpg's, you may love your raw's. Actually, not the raw's themselves but the jpg's and tiff's you make from them.

The overlay adjustment layer is like flashing. I just learned about it and find it amazing. Check these out.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/layer-blend-modes/multiply/

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Hi, Chuck. You keep mentioning that the kayak is too far into the shot. It seems to me that the only thing making the kayak look too far in is the tree directly in front of it, and to a lesser extent the proximity of the tree underneath it. The kayak is just approaching the centre line of the shot, and without the trees crowding it, I think its position would be near-perfect.

You could still leave much-reduced trees since you like the jagged shore-line. But if the kayak had more clear space, it would sit very nicely where it is. The trees and shoreline form a silhouetted U-shape, and the kayak is just coming up to the centre of the U.

If you have PSE 11, its RAW editor (ACR) should be very capable. It was PSE 12 that convinced me to change over to RAW. ACR can accept RAW from both of my cameras.

RAW gives you more dynamic range SOOC, you don't have to worry about jpeg artefacts and ACR in PSE gives you enough tools to do a really significant amount of correcting. It won't do everything that you want, but it WILL give you the best possible starting point.


PS - With or without the kayak, this is an excellent, well-balanced, well-exposed shot.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks so much for that link! I think I will peruse that whole site. After nearly 7 years of just foolin' around I am only now beginning to get serious and I have much to learn.

I don't know if I can convince my bride that there is a $50+ widget that I absolutely must own in order to get the white balance perfect (The what balance now, she inquires), but I see the thing and will consider it. Most of the time when I am outdoors I leave it on daylight balance, sometimes cloudy when needed, and indoors I usually can find a white-ish wall to shoot a balance off, esp. in cases where the lighting is badly mixed. In February there is a favorite model RR show we always attend, in a monster hall lit by pretty much everything including mercury vapors. Ghastly. An Expodisc would really be valuable there!

I will start messing about with raw. I promise. But if you glance at my Flickr stuff you'll see that I am really pretty happy just being a "snapshooter." Plus I see lots of strong arguments that if you can get it right (most of the time) in camera, then you don't necessarily need raw files. I am not about to make that argument since I don't know a** from elbow at this stage, but us old film guys know how important accurate exposure is. I tend to treat digital much the way I treated chromes; y'hafta nail the exposure, which is what I always do. I don't find it difficult at all.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks very much! I may go back and delete more trees in front of the kayaker, esp. since it's now relatively easy to do so seamlessly. That shot would have been a kayak-less sunset if he hadn't happened along.

I am promising to experiment with raw. I have a few raw files dating back to when that camera was new (I have not saved any raw files since), so I will open them and play. It's just that I've been pretty pleased with what the camera delivered. I know all about artifacts and lossy and compression; I just haven't been that fussy. Or ambitious! :mrgreen:

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Amusing thought for the day:- I wonder how many photographers have a chainsaw but have a suspicious lack of firewood - or even a fire :lol: .

BrentHarder Loc: Southern California

I have no gripes about anything with your photo......not even the position of the boat. I love the gradation of colors on the water.....very rich and beautiful.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Waaaaaaaiiiiiit a minute, Mr. R. G. Are you tryin' t'tell me that them high-end super-spendy DSLR thingies don't have chainsaws?! :mrgreen: :twisted: :roll:
Thank you very kindly, Brent!