# Tinkerer's Dream



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

I really, really wanted this shot, but even taken with a grad filter there were still extreme EV variances. The sunrise color on the mountains was difficult to get a correct WB reading on (read the software wants to correct the warm light). Then the areas in the foreground were in shade and had a whole different WB altogether. I hope you appreciate this one. It was alot of work, but worth it...I think.

No HDR stuff here... {click for larger version}


----------



## Mojo281 (Sep 7, 2006)

Very nice picture!!! I just got back from an alaskan fishing trip this morning and I have been admiring all my pics. I have a nikon d 80 and I have no clue how you get the light to play like that, pretty amazing if you ask me!!!


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

Mojo281 said:


> Very nice picture!!! I just got back from an alaskan fishing trip this morning and I have been admiring all my pics. I have a nikon d 80 and I have no clue how you get the light to play like that, pretty amazing if you ask me!!!


The morning light for this shot was incredible as it reflected down of the overhead clouds. The challenge was getting the camera to reproduce accurately what we saw that morning.

1 comment in 24 hours on this one? Has the lone tree motif now lost it's luster?


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

RustyBrown said:


> The morning light for this shot was incredible as it reflected down of the overhead clouds. The challenge was getting the camera to reproduce accurately what we saw that morning.
> 
> 1 comment in 24 hours on this one? Has the lone tree motif now lost it's luster?


Absolutely not. I think I hesitated on a comment because I am not sure what you said. LOL. I think the shot was most difficult to accomplish. But you out did yourself. Still digesting the commentary by you. Now, I would have just tired the magic of a editing program to change up what I could never accomplish with a camera. That is, if I had one. I gave it up years ago.


----------



## fishcat01 (Mar 24, 2005)

Nice shot. Wanted to repond last night, but the site (or my connection) was very slow at home. Can you elaborate a little on the post processing?


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

I think it was definitely worth it! It is a beautiful capture. I love the way you composed it. It does look kind of like an HDR with the depth of colors and lighting. Well done Sir!


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

fishcat01 said:


> Nice shot. Wanted to repond last night, but the site (or my connection) was very slow at home. Can you elaborate a little on the post processing?


Ah feeling a little better now. I tend to wig out when I think there's a winner and it flops here.

The image was shot in Colorado in July. It was a surreal scene. The light was very warm (red) and my camera tried to compensate as I use AWB all the time as I still beleive it is more accurate when shooting this time of day.

Think of the image in three parts 1) the mountains and sky in direct sunlight 2) the forground grass extending to the mountains and 3) the tree detail. I used a graduated neutral density filter to help balance the brightness betweent he sky and the foreground, but this was early morning and the difference in brightness was still extreme. The colors were all messed up due to mixing sunlight and shade and the predominance of red.

First step was to open the RAW file and create a jpg where part #1 would look right in terms of color and exposure. White balance was eyeballed to make it look as I remembered it. That was file 1.

The process was then repeated for #2 - the areas in shade. Here I needed to lighten the area and take out the stong blue cast you see when mixing daylight and shade in the same shot. That was file 2.

Finally I used the same settings and lightened it even more to bring out the details in the trees. That's right file 3 for those playing at home.

I opened all three jpgs in Photoshop. I superimposed #1 over #2 and created a layer mask painting the corrected grass on to the corrected mountains and sky. Then I flattened the image. I then took that image and placed it over #3 and repeated the process. I reduced the opacity as the original effect on the tree was too strong for my liking. Again I flatten it.

At this point you have the best of all worlds and proceed with your normal processing. Now, for those of you that feel the reason this looks nice is because of all the manipulation you need to understand the reason for the manipulation is to recreate the scene as it was. Todays technology is limited in the range of brightness values that can be recorded compared to how the eyes sees it. Your eyes compensate for color between direct light and shade in a fraction of a second, yet todays cameras require you to choose one for the scene.

A note on HDR vs blending. Blending is by far my preferred method and the reason why is because IMHO the end result looks more realistic. If I'm doing HDRs that look blended and blends that look like a little HDR then I'm probably about where I want to be.

I booked my ticket back for 9/14 :bounce: . I have so much to experiment with before then...


----------



## fishcat01 (Mar 24, 2005)

Thanks, for that. Sounds like some things I have done in the past to accomplish the same result, i.e., "recreate the scene as it was". That's kind of why I was excited about the Photomatix result from the Galveston shot a few posts down. Personally, I prefer the HDR results that provide a scene the best I can remember it, a subtle transition, not that "pasty" look i've seen in many HDR processed images. This image had that look I try to achieve, but then did not have that HDR feel about it. Your explanation helps me understand why. Well done image in that regard.

Photomatix (the paid version) also has an automatic blending mode that sounds similar to what you have done here. I have not tried it yet, but I like your results with the PS blending. Guess I'll have to add that to my list of things to do. Got to get some decent images, first! Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Don't tell anyone Rusty. But many of the edits I do are with the use of Clip Masks. Clip Mask is what Corel calls Layer Mask. And that was the magic I was talking about in my earlier post. Try POM with variing shades of gray instead of just white and black. Works sometimes.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

to be honest Rusty, i took one look at your first post and figured you can't possibly be talking to me because i have absolutely no idea what you said. 

i'll take your word on the hard work comment, but will still sit and admire the beautiful photo that is your end result. 

rosesm


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

*Nice tree! *

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I've been out of pocket for a few days. 
Yep, I like the tree shot. Looks like a lot effort went into the final version.
I bet with a little tinkering, it would look great with a hand painted canvas effect.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

MT Stringer said:


> Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I've been out of pocket for a few days.
> Yep, I like the tree shot. Looks like a lot effort went into the final version.
> I bet with a little tinkering, it would look great with a hand painted canvas effect.


Painted Canvas....hmmmm


----------

