In my last blog post, I talked about my opinion regarding “rules” in photography. In short, I believe it is okay to manipulate exposure or crop (for example) in order to take an image from visualization to the final product. In this post, I would like to revisit the image I introduced last time and dissect it a bit.
Sandstone & Clouds, March 2012
In the field
I am not normally a “grand landscape” sort of photographer; I tend to focus more on intimate scenes. However, when I saw these cliffs, what initially struck me was the fact that the buttresses were receding away from me. Although the mid-morning light had eliminated some of the shadows, I liked that each buttress was casting a bit of a shadow on the buttress behind it. This alternation of light and dark creates a wonderful sense of depth in images, and was a compositional element I wanted to take advantage of here.
Another confession: guys like me do not normally score skies like this. Cloudless blue skies are the story of my life. However, on this particular day, I was loving these high clouds; they were constantly changing and they added a great geometric element to the scene.
For me, the decision of how to balance the composition was pretty easy, and despite the fact I like to think of myself as a rebel, I roughly divided the composition into thirds. I wanted the sky to be the star of the show, so I gave it 2/3 of the frame, and I let the cliffs occupy the remainder. I like sagebrush, and wanted to leave some foreground in as well; this also gives a good visual “root” for the cliffs to sit on.
To expose the frame, I had a couple of choices. To underexpose would have meant preserving the shadows that attracted me to the scene. But, it would also introduce shadows to the foreground, which I did not really want to do. The alternative I had was to overexpose to the point where the shadows were not as dark while maintaining detail in the rest of the frame. You have probably heard the phrase, “expose to the right;” that is what I chose to do here. Phil Colla has a concise and clear explanation of the technique here.
You can always darken a scene in post-processing, but to lighten it up risks introducing noise.
To get the exposure I wanted for the lower part of the image, I had trouble preserving detail in the bright white clouds, so I made two exposures, 1 stop apart from each other.
At home
I opened the RAW files together, and in Adobe Camera RAW I adjusted the images based on the vision I had in the field. After opening the images in Photoshop, I continued this process. First I blended the images using a technique I learned several years ago from Younes Bounhar. You can read about it here. After checking carefully to make sure the images had aligned properly and there were no artifacts, I made my initial adjustments largely using Nik’s software plug-ins. The two I used here were the ‘Tonal Contrast’ filter (in Color Efex Pro), and then I used Silver Efex Pro to get the black and white conversion I wanted.
I do not have a lot to offer in terms of strategic choice on this (I did what looked best to my eye), but I only made subtle adjustments and I made careful choices based on my vision. In choosing the black and white filter, I made sure to keep the detail in the clouds, but also to make them stand out. I also kept an eye on the tonal contrast between the sagebrush and the beginning of the cliffs.
I applied a global curves layer, and then used separate levels to mask the cliffs, and selectively darken the shadows. I saved the TIFF file (with all of the layers), and then flattened, sharpened, and saved a JPEG for the web.
The beauty of image processing is that there is definitely more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. When you start with a creative vision, you learn ways to arrive at the final product in post-processing. As you gain experience, you build skills that will eventually become a tool kit that you can selectively choose from when you process more challenging images.
Hmmmm. Exposing to the right will add detail to your shadows. Exposing to the left will preserve your highlights. They way you wrote it, you have it wrong (or I understood wrong)….
Personally I like to get the results in camera. But sometimes that is indeed not achievable. In my opinion, I have to go really crazy to induce noise in my files. I usually add noise myself. Digital looks to clean. 😉
Thanks for commenting, Olivier. Regarding exposing to the right…I had it written correctly, but it was unclear. I’ve tried to clarify–thanks for pointing that out!
I agree that getting results in the camera is always best–not always feasible though, depending on the situation. A solid understanding of the scene, as well as the equipment is necessary to do this in a way that isn’t haphazard.
I tend to lean toward getting it right in the camera mainly because it saves time and avoids using Photoshop as a crutch. That said, when an image has a range that exceeds the camera, I see nothing wrong with bracketing for exposure and stitching. It is merely an added tool in the bag we have now that was not available in the film era.
Thanks for your comment, David. I agree wholeheartedly….these are just tools that should be used wisely and deliberately…
When I first started to get serious about photography, I looked towards Ansel Adams as the ultimate “get it in camera” guy. Then I started to learn about the work Ansel did in the darkroom, dodging and burning…. This is not to take anything away from Ansel, he continues to inspire me (along with David’s dad!) but that my mistaken perception of the righteousness of getting it just right in the camera.
I continue to strive for it – for as David points out, it’s a time saver indeed. But my thoughts towards editing have changed, evolved, matured, whatever term you want to use. I don’t know that I will ever become one of those folks who makes their subject matter look “not real”, but dodging and burning don’t give me any heartburn anymore.
Also, like David says, using the tools available to us, I’m experimenting with HDR in spots that are very high contrast where before I would have not attempted a shot for fear of blowing something out or being too dark to see…..
Also, for what it’s worth, I find myself spending more editing time on my black and white shots than the color ones….
Regardless, nice shot here, and I think that you have done a splendid job of editing!
Thanks for this really thoughtful comment, Derrick. I agree with you completely that as I’ve evolved (I certainly haven’t matured!), I have found all of these tools available to me really enhance my ability to convey what I want to say in an image. Like you, I want my images to look realistic, but I don’t mind putting an artistic spin on them now and then…
Its all about knowing your gear, knowing what you want out of the scene, and knowing how to get from point A to point B.
Thanks for sharing your thought process behind this shot Greg. I always find it quite interesting reading how other’s thought process develops. I had to laugh at your comment about scoring a sky like this – because it fits me exactly! 🙂 I think you used tone here effectively to do exactly what you were after, with a very nice resulting shot.
A bit part of the learning process is knowing exactly what that Point B can offer – which I think is the hard part for most (including myself). Then – knowing how to get there…
Thanks for your comment, Mark. I think you nailed the core of the issue here…knowing what Point B can offer is for most a lifelong learning exercise. The technical things…the camera, and even post-processing can be learned relatively quickly, but the visualization is something that’s constantly developing in every photographer.