Gordon Falls

[w7xman]

In good flow, I think that this is among the prettiest little falls in the Whites. I was on a photo trip with a few folks I've met online this Saturday in the mist, and we hiked the waterfall look from Appalachia. Perfect atmosphere for shooting like this.

I have a question on technique for waterfallers and photoshoppers. In cases where you can't shoot two photos and merge for shadows and highlights, I usally expose for the water to keep it from blowing out. This usually has the shadows falling pretty deep in hemlock gorges like this...

I in this case double processed the raw, and used the eraser tool to blend the two images. Is there a better way to keep the highlights right, and recover some shadow detail???

Thoughts on technique and composition and detail appreciated!

Techs:
Canon 20D w/ Sigma 18-200
0.8Seconds @ F11
ISO 100
1 Stop ND + Polarizer
Double processes single RAW file...
Tripod and Cold Wet Feet!

Slightly larger version here:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/...262&b=vg2&st=0&la=787&ph=11&sid=22946&u=22946

 

[kmorgan]

I have a question on technique for waterfallers and photoshoppers. In cases where you can't shoot two photos and merge for shadows and highlights, I usally expose for the water to keep it from blowing out. This usually has the shadows falling pretty deep in hemlock gorges like this...

I in this case double processed the raw, and used the eraser tool to blend the two images. Is there a better way to keep the highlights right, and recover some shadow detail???

Thoughts on technique and composition and detail appreciated!

I've been doing a lot of studying lately on some more advanced Photoshop techniques. Most of the following I got from Scott Kelby's book, "The Photoshop Channels Book". The easiest initial fix for this image is to go to Image>adjustments>shadow/highlights.

I set the shadows setting to 30 and left highlights at 0. Go to History and make a snapshot of this and name it "shadow/highlight". I then tried several LAB mode enhancement techniques.

The first is to convert to LAB, choose Curves (ctrl-m) and adjust the A and B channels so they are steeper (bottom left moves right along the bottom 10 units, top right moves left along the top 10 units). Back to History and make a snapshot called 10 LAB.

Select the Shadow/Highlight snapshot to restore the image to that setting and repeat the LAB adjustment above but this time 20 units top and bottom. Back to History, make a snapshot called 20 LAB.

If you want you can take it even further by selecting the shadow/highlight snapshot and repeating the LAB mod at 30 units. This is usually too much saturation unless the picture is really flat.

Last, select the shadow/highlight snapshot again and do the following (this is really killer so it's worth making an action for it):

1. Convert to LAB and make a duplicate of the background layer (ctrl-J).
2. Select the Lightness channel (ctrl-1) then choose Image>apply image. Source is your image, Layer is Merged, channel is "a" (be sure it's not Lightness) and Blending set to Overlay. Click OK.
3. Select the "a" channel (ctrl-2), Image>apply image again, Layer is merged, channel is "a", blending at Overlay, click OK.
4. Once more, this time select the "b" channel (ctrl-3) Layer is Merged, channel is "b" and Blending is Overlay, click OK.

Select the Lab channel at the top (ctrl-~) to see your image. Convert back to RGB mode (flatten layers is OK), go to History and make a last snapshot and call it "LAB Pop".

Now you can select each snapshot, one at a time and see which one you like best and save it. You can also save each snapshot as an individual file by clicking on the save snapshot as document icon at the bottom of the history palette if you'd like.

I chose the image adjustments after 30/0 shadow/highlights and the Lab Pop method. Here's what I got:



Kevin

 

[NewHampshire]

Kevin,

Your version seems a little too contrasty, but you did some excellent work getting those shadows to pop.

Nice capture, Jim.

Brian

 

[kmorgan]

Kevin,

Your version seems a little too contrasty, but you did some excellent work getting those shadows to pop.

Nice capture, Jim.

Brian

It all depends on taste, that's why you have to do several different versions using the "snapshot" feature of the History palette. This lets you go through a large number of steps, save the state, layers, adjustments and all, then go back to an earlier state and take a different path.

There are all kinds of other things you can do. The idea was to show what could be done and give the steps to doing it. LAB space is VERY powerful and a lot can be accomplished using it. I have the Photoshop LAB Color book by Dan Margulis and have barely scratched the surface.

Kevin

 

[Grumpy]

Looking at the two images posted above, I prefer – by a wide margin – the original. For me, it evokes the sense of the place and moment. It is “authentic,” with subtlety and nuance. The more manipulated second image looks and seems artificial to me.

What we have here, I think, is an excellent example of how Photoshop – which is an incredibly powerful tool in the hands of skilled users – can be over-used. Please understand I am not being intentionally critical of Kmorgan here. That is merely an observation pertaining to the result achieved in illustrating certain image manipulations that can be done.

The real question, for me, is this: At what point do we cross the line from doing photography – in the classic “writing with light” sense of it – into the realm of manipulating electronic signals to produce something that is artificial or at least synthetic? I don’t really have a hard-and-fast answer to that question, other than the old, “know it when I see it” business.

I suppose our preferences in this matter are very individual. Mine lean toward the more literal approach in which sound shooting technique and sound application of basic processing technique carries the day.

G.

 

[kmorgan]

First let me say that I take no offense to any criticism of any of my images or manipulation of the images of others. I say this because of the difficulty expressing oneself via print/email and don't wish to sound put out. That said:

One of the things we have to remember is that no camera or recording device can capture the same range of color and nuance combined with almost limitless depth of field that the human eye can. Add to that the filtering and interpretation that the brain applies and you really have a hard time capturing exactly what you saw. If that is what you are trying to accomplish.

Sometimes overly saturated photographs add drama and emotion to a scene. Go to any "print" outlet and see what's selling for wall art. Dramatic, overlong exposures with super saturated greens and yellows in the forest, coupled with rich umbers in the soil and the occasional bright red flower thrown in.

The original question was how to bring out the shadow detail in Photoshop. The idea was to purposely exaggerate the effect to show what could be done. If I was doing the image for myself, I would have probably faded the effect immediately after applying it (another little known fact about Photoshop, after applying an effect, filter or adjustment, if you go to Edit immediately there is a FADE option available). I also like working in layers and being able to vary the layers opacity and blending modes.

Here is how I would have adjusted the picture. I used a 5/0 Shadow/Highlight adjustment followed by a 10 unit a-b steepening in Lab space:



Kevin

 

[w7xman]

Thanks all for the comments and critiques.

Kmorgan, I will give this a try later in the day. I got another method to try as well from another picture forum, perhaps I'll post results from both...I really like the second edit though...really brings out nice shadow detail...

I simply liked the shot and want to help it as much as possible!

Thanks!

 

[kmorgan]

It's a great picture. I'd frame it and put it on my wall.

Kevin