gollywop: Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.
Wouldn't it be a giggle if this were all a hoax? What if Slater actually took the photos and was simply trying to create something out of it? He could then get the copyright, but there'd be nothing special about the picture.
How do we, in fact, know things happened as reported?
You did too in your post above:
>> they could have been cropped
>> both look like, and are selfies..
Hey! I know! Maybe the monkey used a remote – or perhaps he used the self-timer. And, if the later, who actually took the picture? :-)
To Tonkotsu Ramen: how in the heck could the perspective of the one to the left be head-on if the camera were being held to the side? Cropping isn't going to allow that to happen. Use your head, man.
The one to the left is clearly not a selfie. If that shot was supposed to be included in the so-called selfies, maybe good faith is hard to abide.
Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.
I assume it's still possible to get PM notifications without Forum & Comments notifications. I want the former, but not the latter.
Completely striking. Wow!
You've got to pull all these together into a "history" of the creek. Wonderful mood captured here.
I love it!
OMG, it's April 1.
Well, I like this new one, but you've removed the first version, so I can't directly compare. However, there is something about the new one that begs for being a bit more off-set, if possible -- perhaps by pulling the main cluster more upward to the left. But there may not be pixels enough to make such a crop.
All-in-all, however, I like the effect of the blue-black, muck-soaked rocks. They provide a marvelous contrast in substance to the beautifully green growth, and I'd hate to lose too much of them in a re-crop. Nice work.
Your appreciative audience of one,gollywop
abluesky: Re:ETTR in Hi DR scenes
I thought that sever pulling of the shadows was to be avoided precisely because of the increase in noise that it creates?
This question is answered fully in your thread:
edhannon: I seem to remember (harder as I pass 70) that ETTR was originally designed to overcome the problem of an exponential tone curve wrt f-stops. Half of the bit depth is in the first stop below saturation - half of the remaining is in the nest stop, etc.
If you underexpose and then brighten in PP won't you end up on the shallow slope of the tone curve and loose most of the bit depth? So don't you have to balance the gain in highlight headroom with the lose of effective bit depth?
The issue in your first paragraph is dealt with in the "technical underpinnings" addendum on page 2, Ed.
As to the second paragraph: everything is a balancing act. If you want to retain specific highlights and do it all in one shot, then you've got to put up with what you've got. If you're willing to give up the highlights (I rarely am), then you can blow things to your heart's content to gain more in the shadows. But I would call that falling over the edge rather than balancing.
If you want the best of both worlds, and you have the opportunity and/or patience to do so, then multiple shots or other HDR techniques would be called for. But that's not ETTR, and I am dealing here with ETTR.
The Sage Knows: Thanks for taking the time to post this article. Like others, I think the example of the two gentlemen in the room may be more suited as a two exposure HDR-ETTR rather than a single ETTR. By putting the window to the right of the histogram and letting the main subject go into deep shadow at the LEFT of the histogram did precisely the opposite of what I believe is the main aim of ETTR, that is to reduce image noise by maximizing the recorded signal. Hence, a second exposure that disregarded the window and Exposed the interior-TTR would have been better. And if what is in the small window is still important, the two exposures could then be combined in post processing pretty easily. I'm sure you already know this.
Yes, Sage Knows, but this conventional wisdom is often more easily said than done, as is the case here. The men were moving and I was hand-holding the camera. I was at 1/6 secs, and it amazes me still how well the IBIS worked.
I had just come into this dark room from bright sunlight, and my aperture was at f/8. I needed to shoot quickly and didn't have a lot of time for adjustment. I could have gained an EV by opening up to f/5.6, but even then my shutter speed would have been only 1/12 secs. And, if I now tried to increase exposure the 2 or 3 EV needed for the "shadow shot" you suggest, I would have had to use such a long shutter speed that a decent hand-held shot would have been impossible.
And, in doing all that, I would have missed the shot.
Chris Noble: Good article Gollywop, thank you. However, in cases where the DR of the image is greater than 6-7 EV, it is often necessary to compromise between preserving highlights (by reducing exposure) vs. capturing shadow detail (by increasing exposure). In your example 1, the top 3-4 EV are "consumed" entirely by the small area of the window (50 pixels or so per exposure value), leaving most of the image exposed below -6 EV (50,000 pixels per exposure value, with no significant drop-off in pixel count even at - 12 EV). I would have added 2 to 3 EV to this exposure. You would have saturated a very small portion of the image (parts of the small window, which is not of great interest in this image), in return for pulling the majority of the image up out of the shadows. Same comment for example 3: the top 3 EV are (in my mind) "wasted" on keeping the sun below 0 EV, yet there is no tonal range there in the final image; meanwhile, the bulk of the image is below -6 EV. Just my opinion of course.
There are definitely cases where your point is well taken, Chris. However, the conventional wisdom expressed there is not always of hugely practical significance. It would be if one really required exquisite detail in the shadows. But that is often not the case.
In all the examples I included, I feel I got excellent content in those lower reaches. I love the images. What I hate, however, is blown, contentless windows -- or clouds, or white shirts, or whatever of substance is being sacrificed in the highlights. In the second image of those three high-DR examples, the portion of the scene that would have been blown by your suggestion would have been outlandish. The photograph would have been useless, whereas what I ended up with is far from so.
Blowing inconsequential highlights and specular highlights is one thing, but, to me, blobs on an image are ugly, and they distract me very much. I judge the quality of a photograph by such things.
That's a good thought as far as it goes. But if severe pushing of the shadows is the only way you can get the shot -- and if it nevertheless results in an acceptable final image -- then severe pushing of the shadows is the only game in town. The idea in these cases is to get acceptable shadows without blowing important highlights.
And, while less noise is clearly better than more noise (unless you're looking for an effect), noise is not always the end of the world. It can often be handled very well. So: either take the shot and have the image, or be content with the memory.
Thanks for posting this shot, DM. I really needn't comment because you know as well as I how wonderful a mood this carefully crafted shot sets. The composition, exposure, and processing are just what was needed. With a clear and commanding central theme, I particularly like how the cloud formation then flows into the foreground spruce (?) at the right-hand side. Lovely.
cmantx: Thank You Jimix Photo. I have nothing to add. You covered it well.
I'd briefly like to explain how I took my shot. I like to use "cloudy" WB in-camera most of the time. I shoot in RAW so I can tweak WB to my liking. Using MY monitor I was trying for an accurate rendering of the colors in the Hummingbird and the Cape Honeysuckle Flowers. The streak of yellow on the hummingbirds head is pollen. The background is a mix of pine tree foliage and a crepe mrytle's leaves that were in the process of changing to fall colors. So some red/brown is in the background. Not gollywop's cup-of-tea but I liked it.
Yes, you are no doubt correct that I was more caustic to cmantx than was appropriate. I'm sorry for that. But my comment was only partially directed at cmantx; I was more upset by what's implied about the somewhat errant voting in some of these challenges (which seems well characterized by those who mistake a yellow cast for warm afternoon light).
But, yes, my apologies to cmantx, who, to his great credit, appears to be willing to listen despite my moment of irritation.
gollywop: How is it that a photo with such egregiously incorrect WB can be awarded anything at all? How could you even think to enter it into a challenge without a little appropriate PP? And how could people be so unknowing as to vote for it? A good capture (which, by the way, it is) is not enough to make a good photo. I've lost all faith in the value of these "challenges."
I've posted my version at
I modified the jpeg WB in ACR with a Temperature adjustment of -36 and a Tint adjustment of -6. As I said above, try those values and toggle between the resulting image and the original WB and you'll see what I mean. You may prefer it a bit warmer, but, to my taste, I wouldn't go much more.
I do wonder if this issue may not have been the reason the voting on this image was so bimodal.
No, not my cup of tea. There is a decided, and, IMO, distracting yellow cast to the image, including the flower colors. The red is a somewhat unpleasant color, and is not at all "reminiscent of a warm afternoon light of a sunny day."
Of course, to each his own, but the eye during raw processing is easily tricked. The explanation is given in your saying you use a cloudy-day WB, which will indeed produce a significant yellow cast when employed in daylight lighting. After looking at such an image for a while during processing, the eye begins to adjust to make it look "right," and so leaves you with an undesirable WB. Use a WB reference card to keep you straight.
With the jpeg you've posted, a WB modification in ACR with a Temp adjustment of -36 and a Tint adjustment of -6 produces, at least to me, a very nice image.
Try starting there and toggle between that setting and the one you have. You'll see what I mean.
I love the capture, by the way, but not the color cast.