Conland Farm

[Donald]

Managed to get out at last (after two weeks or so having to do other things).


40D, 17-85 f4-5.6 Kit IS USM @ 50mm. ISO 100. 1/6@f11. 3+2 Cokin P GNDs

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Donald,

It is definitely 'one of yours', so you haven't forgotten how to take them in the two week gap

The filter(s) seem to do the trick.

For me, the sky composition is good, but the ground composition looks like it would be more optimal if the shot was moved 1/4 frame to the right - does that makes sense? I can try to explain further if need be, but it is academic now really, unless you had some more to right which you cropped off.

It is a good 'moody' shot where the feel of the weather, as much as anything, is the subject, hence the importance of not compromising the clouds for the foreground (as you haven't).

Cheers,

[Donald]

Dave

Many thanks for your comments. I got about 45 minutes of a window between rain showers, at 4:30 this afternoon. Sun made brief appearances through low cloud.

Re your:

... but the ground composition looks like it would be more optimal if the shot was moved 1/4 frame to the right

I know what you mean. But there is just a very narrow crop off the right hand side. There is quite a bit off the bottom, to get rid of a grass field. I liked the 3:2 aspect, but couldn't get it to fit and keep the horizon on the top third. So, went for the 16:9, which I find I'm using quite a lot.

[uncuffed]

I realy like the composition in all and especially the sky but i find my eyes wandering to the bright spots on top of the roof to the left and on the roof to the right.

[Dave Humphries]

I realy like the composition in all and especially the sky but i find my eyes wandering to the bright spots on top of the roof to the left and on the roof to the right.

Aah, that is a bit of Donald's 'style' - and when they are on thirds also, it complements the overall image - this is sort of what I meant by my comment, those highlights aren't quite where they need to be in relation to the clouds.

But there is just a very narrow crop off the right hand side

If there had been more image to the right, I would have 'slid' the two in relation to each other, as I'm sure you guessed.

So, went for the 16:9, which I find I'm using quite a lot.

That works quite well I think, and is just perfect for my laptop screen

Cheers,

[Terry Tedor]

I like this, but I think there's two shots here and I can't quite tell which one you'd like me to see. The sky is certainly dramatic and caught my eye from the start. And then there's the foreground - so much to look at and linger on, but it's just a tad too dark to really see what's going on there and get involved in it. I agree with Dave's comment - ¼ frame to the right might be nice. I'd also clone out the tall radio tower on the far hill right of center.

And, I'm curious, what was Dave referring to - "The filter(s) seem to do the trick."?

[Donald]

And, I'm curious, what was Dave referring to - "The filter(s) seem to do the trick."?

Terry
You'll see under the image that I've noted that I had a 2 x Cokin Graduated Neutral Density Filters mounted to stop the sky blowing out (totalling 5 stops).

I've never got into that HDR thing. I prefer having the filters on the camera. But even then, I sometimes need to take a seperate exposure for the sky and blend them together. When that does happen, I prefer doing the blending with a mask and a paintbrush rather than HDR software, which I've never taken the time to understand.

ps:

but it's just a tad too dark to really see what's going on

Would welcome you trying to explain this one. I don't want people to be seeing something different than I'm seeing on my screen. What is it that you think is too dark to see detail in?

[Terry Tedor]

Terry
You'll see under the image that I've noted that I had a 2 x Cokin Graduated Neutral Density Filters mounted to stop the sky blowing out (totalling 5 stops).

I've never got into that HDR thing. I prefer having the filters on the camera. But even then, I sometimes need to take a seperate exposure for the sky and blend them together. When that does happen, I prefer doing the blending with a mask and a paintbrush rather than HDR software, which I've never taken the time to understand.

Thanks for the info. I saw that there, but didn't know what it meant. I too haven't gotten into the HDR thing, but sadly I will admit that my masking/painting skills are nonexistant. Perhaps you could point me to a good reference that I might be able to teach myself.

Would welcome you trying to explain this one. I don't want people to be seeing something different than I'm seeing on my screen. What is it that you think is too dark to see detail in?

My apologies, I failed to view your image at full size and now, doing so, realize the shadows weren't blocked up quite as bad as I initially thought. The main areas I see as being too dark are in the trees to the left of what appears to be a house and open air barn, the house itself and inside the barn and the buildings behind the storage silos and bags of grain (?). Looking at it full size now, I see what I thought was a tower is in reality an electrical pole and lines and I now see an additional pole, yes? Sometimes I wish we could all have underground utilities!

[Colin Southern]

Hi Donald,

How about this as an alternative interpretation?

- Cropped off the highlight at the top of the frame (distracting)?

- Cropped off a smidgen at the bottom (to make it a touch more panoramic)

- Cloned out the blown highlight in the clouds at top left

- Raised the shadows

- Adjusted mid-tones with a levels layer

- Hand dodged the trees some more

- Hand burned some of the hills

[Terry Tedor]

Hi Donald,

How about this as an alternative interpretation?

- Cropped off the highlight at the top of the frame (distracting)?

- Cropped off a smidgen at the bottom (to make it a touch more panoramic)

- Cloned out the blown highlight in the clouds at top left

- Raised the shadows

- Adjusted mid-tones with a levels layer

- Hand dodged the trees some more

- Hand burned some of the hills

Yes, better. Lightens the whole tone of the shot, but preserves the drama in the sky and conveys the "clearing between the showers" feel.

Now the big question... Can you explain to this novice how you did this?

[Colin Southern]

Yes, better. Lightens the whole tone of the shot, but preserves the drama in the sky and conveys the "clearing between the showers" feel.

Now the big question... Can you explain to this novice how you did this?

Hi Terry,

They're all fairly simply Photoshop adjustments - but seperate steps all the same. What version of Photoshop are you using?

[ScoutR]

How about this as an alternative interpretation?

- Cropped off the highlight at the top of the frame (distracting)?

- Cropped off a smidgen at the bottom (to make it a touch more panoramic)

- Cloned out the blown highlight in the clouds at top left

- Raised the shadows

- Adjusted mid-tones with a levels layer

- Hand dodged the trees some more

- Hand burned some of the hills

I've been looking at both versions side by side off and on for awhile now and here are my conclusions.

1. I don't find the highlight at the top of the frame distracting, and blown highlight or not I like the sky in the original. It's more dramatic and contrasts better with the rest of the scene.

2. I agree the shadows need to be raised a bit, but I think the rework is a bit too much. The mood of the shot is lost somehow with too much light in the foreground.

3. I also think that the field on the right hand side looks better in the original as it has a kind of misty look that adds to the mood. I would keep it as is in the original.

Bottom line for me is that the original does need a bit more light in the foreground, but not as much as in Colin's rework. Everything else I would leave as is in order to keep the mood and tone of the shot. That's just me though, and as usual my thoughts are just from a casual observer point of view.

Wendy

[Colin Southern]

Hi Wendy,

Out of interest, are you working from a calibrated and profiled screen?

[Terry Tedor]

Hi Terry,

They're all fairly simply Photoshop adjustments - but seperate steps all the same. What version of Photoshop are you using?

CS4. Thanks.

[ScoutR]

Hi Wendy,

Out of interest, are you working from a calibrated and profiled screen?

Nope, just the calibration that comes with the system.

[Colin Southern]

Nope, just the calibration that comes with the system.

Ahh - strong possibility that you're not seeing what I'm seeing then (of course it's also possible that you simply have your own preferences! - it's just that with this kink of image the black point of the monitor is VERY critical and a lot of shadow detail can be hidden or revealed if it's not set correctly.

[Colin Southern]

CS4. Thanks.

Hi Terry,

Do you have any existing CS4 training materials?

[ScoutR]

Ahh - strong possibility that you're not seeing what I'm seeing then (of course it's also possible that you simply have your own preferences! - it's just that with this kink of image the black point of the monitor is VERY critical and a lot of shadow detail can be hidden or revealed if it's not set correctly.

It's probably a combination of both. I will check out the calibration on mine. How long has it been since you calibrated your monitor.

[Colin Southern]

How long has it been since you calibrated your monitor.

I never have to touch the calibration on mine, but it was re-profiled a few weeks ago (it's LCD, and doesn't drift much).

EDIT: Having just had another look at my version, it possibly could do with the mid-tones lowered slightly.

[Terry Tedor]

Hi Terry,

Do you have any existing CS4 training materials?

Yes, I have "Photoshop CS4: The Missing Manual", "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS4" and "Adobe Photoshop CS4 for Photographers". Plus two books on Black & White, one on Low Light and one on HDR. Too many, I don't know where to start.