Nightfall in the canyon.

[E B]

The first rays of the sun haven't penetrated the canyon bottom, and darkness seems to still hide in the lower reaches. The last of the nightime birds and animals have sought their nests and the first timid day life is beginning to move about. Not here though, it knows that it shouldn't get too close to the canyon edge. The desert landscape holds no heat and the night cold can still be felt. The mighty river, over a mile distant, cannot be heard and all is still. The Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The local time is 07:14 hours.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/TMAUR/Spring%202006%20Death%20Valley/Small/P5110214.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/TMAUR/Spring%202006%20Death%20Valley/Big/P5110214.jpg)

Camera: E-330
Lens: DZ 14-54mm zoom at 46mm.
Shooting mode: P
Shutter speed: 1/180
Aperture: f4
ISO: 100
Metering: ESP

[Garry Frankel]

The composition and texture are exceptional. I wonder though if the mids could not be brought up a bit or sharpened or something to just bring out a little more detail, espcially at the web sizes.

[E B]

Yep, that can be done. I also worked with this image in Bibble which displays a much wider dynamic range than Studio does. Needless to say, all Bibble interpretations of this image showed much more detail than the Studio image I posted. I have no idea, really, why I selected this particular version for posting. Something subconscious, I suppose.

[Hokuto]

Love the composition, but in my book it's a real candidate for "haze suppression" with wide USM. It really clears up the mid distance.

[E B]

Thank you.

[windsprite]

I agree about the haze, but it's still a nice picture. I like the composition, with the river running through diagonally, and the dark colors. Quite different from the usual reddish canyon scenes we usually see. Looks like a difficult shot, with all the dark tones and the light sky.

[E B]

Thank you. I think that at least some haze is essential to the atmosphere of the image. As to cutting the amount in post processing, I've examined the suggested technique and I don't like it. But then, maybe I'm just a rebel. I don't use curves either. I examined their use and decided that it was a fad continually fueled by new users who didn't realize the downside of using curve adjustments.

[windsprite]

Well, I wouldn't cut all the haze out--I agree that it enhances the atmosphere--but I think a small tweak would bring out a little more detail. To each his own!

[finemom]

Thank you. I don't use curves either. I examined their use and decided that it was a fad continually fueled by new users who didn't realize the downside of using curve adjustments.

Could you explain the downside? I like the photo and assume the haze is the way the scene actually looked. Were public spots or were you in out of the way unknown spots when you took these photos?

[E B]

I was in the usual tourists spots for all of the images I've posted so far on the Grand Canyon. Yes, the haze was there. I alter my images, but only to the extent that I try to match the photographic image to my memory of what I actually saw. You'll never see one of my images with the sky from another image pasted in or maybe birds added or similar alterations. I accept that other folks do those things in terms of creating art, but my objective with photography has always been to record what I see, more in the documentary mode rather than the creation of art mode.

Downside to curves? Ok, the typical use of curves is to anchor the line at the center and both ends and then drag the unanchored portions of the line up or down, traditionally in an S shaped curve. When you pull the curve above the line it brightens the input and when you pull the curve below the line it darkens the input. That's mostly what people want and why they try using curves in the first place. The problem is the additional variables. Specifically, the slope of the curve of the line controls the contrast in that portion of the histogram. Flat portions of the curve lower the contrast and steep portions of the curve raise the contrast. Parts of the curve having the same slope as the reference line don't change the contrast. Bottom line is that it has too many variables for a person to actually manage accurately. Better to adjust contrast and brightness with other contols which are more easily adjusted/calibrated and which do not interact with each other. For example, using fill light can brighten shadows without affecting midtone contrast, while with curves you have to give up contrast in a different part of the histogram and may even cause clipping. The real bottom line is that there is a place for using curves, but it should be the last resort in image post processing, not the routine adjustment that some folks make of it. Hope that helps explain the downside of curves and why I avoid using them if possible.

[finemom]

I never meant to imply that you would use parts of pictures. I only meant that I assume what you post is as close to what you saw as you can get from the photo. I love you work and am quite intimidated by it. I truly believe that landscapes are the most difficult compositions to achieve and don't feel I have the patience to try.

Thanks for the crives explanation. I will check out what you've said about curves in some of the photos that I've pp'd using it. I have now come to the conclusion that it's best to get the photo taken correctly and only to pp if necessary.

[E B]

Oh no, I know you didn't imply anything. I was only using that as an example. I certainly agree with you that the best possible image is the one that all corrections were made while picture was being composed. Post processing is a necessary evil that is usually employed to correct for the shooters errors committed while creating the image.

[JamesD]

EB,

This thread escaped me for a while. Just now came across it.
I particularly wanted to ask a follow up question about the Curves discussion.

I sort of "get" your explanation about the slope of the line, and the implications of having LOTS of different slopes.

Could you share a lilttle more information about how [if you don't use Curves] you address contrast/brightness issues in postprocessing when you need to.

Much obliged,

Jim

[E B]

Contrast and brightness are easily handled without using curves. I normally RAW develop with Studio and contrast and saturation are variables adjustable in the RAW development window itself. Additionally, Studio has PP editing controls for both contrast and brightness. It also has the auto tone correction which actually is a fill light function and doesn't change the tone curve.

In PhotoCleaner, which I often use as a PP tool there are levels adjustments and saturation adjustments as well.

In Bibble, which I occasionally use, there are auto levels adjustments, and separate sliders for vibrance, saturation, contrast, highlight recovery and fill light, all of which operate completely independently of the curves which are also available.

Bottom line is that there are multiple ways of doing the same things that most people use curves for but that don't have the same downside as using curves, that is they don't adjust multiple variables at once in ways that are not easily quantifiable and controlled.

For the most part, I usually RAW develop in Studio and then tidy up with PhotoCleaner.

[JamesD]

Thanks so much, EB.

I've just got Studio and PSCS2 installed. And MAYBE :confused: I could figure this all out for myself in time.

But it sure is nice to get a little help from someone who's a bit ahead, rather than having to "reinvent the wheel" as they say.

And this Forum is GREAT in that regard, whether its asking an actual question, searching past threads, or just diggin' on the give and take between others.

Thanks again,

Jim

[E B]

Well, Studio and PS are as much as most folks need. Be sure and examine PS for their one touch fixes such as fill lighting. Many of them are quite effective. You'll notice that they all affect the histogram, but they don't do it in the objectionable way that I think curves does. As to the haze removal that was mentioned earlier and which I don't care for, if you wish to try it the optimum settings in USM would be amount=30, radius=60 and threshold=0.

[jeremy]

This a good shot. The haze is fine - that's how you saw it. The discussion of curves is interesting: in the end it's all about the effect the various tools have on the way the image looks, and the way the photographer wants it to look, rather than about the way the particular tool does what it does. Whatever works for you.

If this were my image I'd consider cropping out the skyline - removing the sky but leaving the grey mountain line.

[E B]

Cropping the skyline? That's an interesting thought. It didn't even occur to me with this shot.

[jeremy]

Glad you welcome the suggestion. Cropping would get rid of the white-out at the top of the frame which adds no real information or atmosphere. I reckon a lot of people wouldn't even notice that it's there, so it might as well go.

In terms of composition it raises the river up to a position closer to the lower third and therefore gives it more weight.