Outside the Badlands,S.D.

[ragman]

Taken just after a rain storm.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Digital]

Ron, nice capture.



Bruce

[ragman]

Thanks John and Bruce. I had to crop the foreground (an asphalt road) which throws off the composition, but I thought I would put it out there anyway.

[Manfred M]

Nicely seen and taken. I assume that crossing the road to get it out of the image was not possible? I find that shifting the position I am shooting from can make a lot of difference when I compose.

I think this image has a lot of potential that a bit of PP work could coax out of it.

First of all, I find that while the shot is really about the cliff and you have included a lot of sky that does not contribute to the image. Cropping that out would emphasize the cliff. I also find that the contrast is a bit too low. Turn up the contrast a bit and the whole image will have a lot more pop.

Finally, a bit of burning and dodging will lift the shadows and tone down the highlights.



Have a look at both images in Lightbox. I think that will give you a better view of a before and after.

[NorthernFocus]

Nicely captured, Ron. I don't think I've ever seen any photos of that area. Really striking landscape that should offer myriad photo ops. Manfred's edit is an improvement IMO.

[ragman]

Thanks for the input Manfred. I like what you have done with this. I did cross the road after the downpour, but then lost the morning light to cloud cover. The resulting pictures were disappointing. I know I had too much sky in this cropping, but liked the contrast with the cliff. I tend to shy away from too much P/P and try to keep it ' natural' and yet what you have done to it does reach out and grab you. I will be more inclined to crank it up in the future. Again, thanks for the input.

[ragman]

Thank You Dan. The Badlands is an amazing area. I only wish I had more time and experience with the camera. Also, my PP skills are zilch. I hope to learn more from you and Manfred.

[Manfred M]

I tend to shy away from too much P/P and try to keep it ' natural'.

I hear that a lot and am not quite sure what that really means. There is nothing "natural" about digital photography. Your camera captures data and someone decides how to arrange and manipulate the data. This can be through presets on your camera that you might or might not over-ride or so data that your editing program defaults to. In the film days the physical characteristics of the film and photographic paper were involved very much the same way. Two identical cameras sitting side by side and taking the same picture at the same time would give you two completely different images. Which one was the right one? There is nothing natural or unnatural about pulling the best out of an image you have taken!

I have found that I can pull a bit more out of virtually any picture I take in post-production. It takes some time to develop these skills, just as it takes to learn how to compose and make a decent shot with your camera.

Whether that is what you really saw or would like the picture

[NorthernFocus]

In addition to Manfred's comments, I'd point out that the mind's eye is much different than the camera's eye. Just like the camera electronics and the computer software, our brains do a lot of processing. If you process an image of a scene half a dozen different ways and show them to a hundred people who were there and ask which is most representative of reality, their opinions will be all over the map. Yes you need to learn technical processing skills. As well as the artsy side of processing the image to be what you remember or to be what you want others to see of a scene. It's really up to you how you ultimately depict a scene.

[ragman]

Manfred. What I meant by 'natural' is the way I remember the view at that moment. Making adjustments to the intensity of the colors in the rock I was concerned it would make it look artificial, but seeing what you did to it has certainly impressed me. I will explore PP more artistically. your PP work greatly improved this photo. Cropping the sky was a definite improvement. The intensity of color in the cliffs is greater than I remember it but sure does make it pop. Thanks again for you critique

[ragman]

Dan. I think what we are saying is photography is an art form and the beauty of it is in the eye of the beholder. Computer PP is very different from darkroom procedure. I have much to learn.

[Manfred M]

Manfred. What I meant by 'natural' is the way I remember the view at that moment. Making adjustments to the intensity of the colors in the rock I was concerned it would make it look artificial, but seeing what you did to it has certainly impressed me. I will explore PP more artistically. your PP work greatly improved this photo. Cropping the sky was a definite improvement. The intensity of color in the cliffs is greater than I remember it but sure does make it pop. Thanks again for you critique

I wasn't there, so I can't tell what the original looked like.

What I do know is what we see and what the camera records are totally different. Our eyes / brain constantly adjust what we think we see, so that things look right to us, even in mixed lighting. We see shadow detail in dark areas that our camera can't pick up and highlight details that are blown out by the camera. So far as I can find in the literature, our eyes have around 20+ eV dynamic range, whereas the best cameras under optimal conditions are in the 14eV range.

So trying to reproduce what you saw is a real challenge and in many cases, impossible.

With respect to your darkroom comments, I would say you are partially correct. As an old-time B&W and colour printer in the wet darkroom, I did control exposure, crop, control contrast (at least on the B&W side), I burned, dodged and made perspective corrections and added vignettes. In fact, everything I did to your image, I could have done in the wet darkroom, save the contrast adjustment in colour.

[ragman]

I wasn't there, so I can't tell what the original looked like.

What I do know is what we see and what the camera records are totally different. Our eyes / brain constantly adjust what we think we see, so that things look right to us, even in mixed lighting. We see shadow detail in dark areas that our camera can't pick up and highlight details that are blown out by the camera. So far as I can find in the literature, our eyes have around 20+ eV dynamic range, whereas the best cameras under optimal conditions are in the 14eV range.

So trying to reproduce what you saw is a real challenge and in many cases, impossible.

With respect to your darkroom comments, I would say you are partially correct. As an old-time B&W and colour printer in the wet darkroom, I did control exposure, crop, control contrast (at least on the B&W side), I burned, dodged and made perspective corrections and added vignettes. In fact, everything I did to your image, I could have done in the wet darkroom, save the contrast adjustment in colour.

[ragman]

Manfred. Cropping, burning and dodging in the e-darkroom is "mechanically" different from that of the wet darkroom. I remember darkroom work, for me anyway, was much more subtle. When I get more proficient with e-PP I can begin to express my artsy side. In no way am I disagreeing with any of the above remarks made to this post. I will continue to absorb any and all comment made knowing this forum is designed to promote better photography. With great respect, I thank you.

[Manfred M]

Manfred. Cropping, burning and dodging in the e-darkroom is "mechanically" different from that of the wet darkroom. I remember darkroom work, for me anyway, was much more subtle. When I get more proficient with e-PP I can begin to express my artsy side. In no way am I disagreeing with any of the above remarks made to this post. I will continue to absorb any and all comment made knowing this forum is designed to promote better photography. With great respect, I thank you.

The technique is obviously different, but the end results are quite similar. In the digital darkroom, we certainly don't have to mess around with an enlarger and all the wet chemistry and in the digital darkroom (using a non-destructive workflow) we don't have to start over from scratch when we "blow it" either...

[ragman]

The technique is obviously different, but the end results are quite similar. In the digital darkroom, we certainly don't have to mess around with an enlarger and all the wet chemistry and in the digital darkroom (using a non-destructive workflow) we don't have to start over from scratch when we "blow it" either...

Manfred...I am more than ready to ride the new wave.

[rpcrowe]

Really nice capture but, as Manfred pointed out, a bit of additional PP might add to the visual appeal.

I have found that adding some structure in NIK Viveza improves man images but avoids the artifacts resulting from other sharpening / contrast addition modes. However, the Color Efex detail extractor also works with this image. IMO, it provides detail making the sky quite ominous and interesting...

[ragman]

Richard...I like this a lot. How you were able to highlight the BG cliffs and the tormented sky has achieved what I had in mind but did not have the PP skill to achieve. I will be investigating that process. Thanks.

[Manfred M]

Richard...I like this a lot. How you were able to highlight the BG cliffs and the tormented sky has achieved what I had in mind but did not have the PP skill to achieve. I will be investigating that process. Thanks.

I am with Richard and do use Nik in most of my work. The current price (free) is a wonderful bargain (I paid around $500 for the collection when I bought it).

I personally prefer the Color Efex filters to the Viveza by a huge margin (I find Nik control points far to crude for much of what I am trying to achieve, and there are faster and easier ways to apply them, once you know how).

Where I disagree with Richard, it is just as easy to introduce artifacts when using Nik just as easily with any other editing techniques. Some of the filters, especially the Detail Extractor and Tonal Contrast can put you "over the top" with artifacts like halos all to quickly. on the other hand, used with a delicate touch, they bring out details, especially in the sky beautifully. Just as an aside, I did not use Nik tools in my edit of your image.

Now, one warning about PP work - the learning curve is long and steep and quite addictive.