Help Needed

[Wheeler McDougal Jr.]

I took this image as I was coming out of canyon at the base of the Big Horn Mountains in north central Wyoming. The view was just spectacular even though it was on a very hot day in the late morning. The light was very contrasty. The image does not depict what the eye saw. I am wondering if anyone has an idea as to what I might have done to make this a better image. I find that trying to capture great sweeps of landscape often end in disapointing images. Shooting data is as follows:

Date Shot: 6/25/2012 13:26:14.30
Time Zone and Date: UTC-5, DST:ON
Image Quality: Lossless Compressed RAW (14-bit)
Artist: Wheeler McDougal Jr.
Copyright: (c) Wheeler McDougaler Jr., Photography
Camera Info
Device: Nikon D4
Lens: 24-70mm f/2.8G
Focal Length: 26mm
Focus Mode: AF-C
AF-Area Mode: Dynamic, 9 points
VR:
AF Fine Tune: OFF
Exposure
Aperture: f/5.6
Shutter Speed: 1/1000s
Exposure Mode: Aperture Priority
Exposure Comp.: 0EV
Exposure Tuning:
Metering: Matrix
ISO Sensitivity: ISO 100
Flash
Device:
Image Settings
White Balance: Direct sunlight, B2, M1
Color Space: Adobe RGB
High ISO NR: ON (Normal)
Long Exposure NR: OFF
Active D-Lighting: OFF
Image Authentication:
Vignette Control: Normal
Auto Distortion Control: ON
Picture Control
Picture Control: [NL] NEUTRAL
Base: [NL] NEUTRAL
Quick Adjust: -
Sharpening: 2
Contrast: 0
Brightness: 0
Saturation: 0
Hue: 0
Filter Effects:
Toning:
GPS
Latitude:
Longitude:
Altitude:
Altitude Reference:
Heading:
UTC:
Map Datum:

[Dave Mills]

Hi Wheeler, There are a number of issues that I see. First off the light isn't working for you. The image appears very flat. Secondly there is no strong center of interest to hold the eye. Finally I feel you included way too much sky which has very little interest.
This image would have been helped by having warm light(early or late) and moving up to one of the objects in the prarie and using it as a foreground element.

[Don Railton]

Hello Wheeler.
I agree with Dave in all accounts, in addition, I think you have chooses an F stop that is too low and suffered a loss of depth of field as a result. I would have chosen an F stop of at least 12, the lowest ISO your camera has and a (lower) shutter speed to match. Note that I think Tripods are wonderful in this situation and are largely underrated things... I would then either sat lower in the grass to make that more dominant in the foreground or moved over to one of the rock/trees as Dave suggested for the shot, during the evening light or early morning ideally... Have fun..

DON

[Wheeler McDougal Jr.]

Thanks all, great hints, only wish I were still there to try again. Maybe, next year.

Mac

[Douglas Bolt]

Hi Wheeler,

Sometimes with a beautiful and wide open scene, making the image into a pano can still capture the vastness, yet not let the sky or foreground (which ever is less interesting) dominate. Also, boosting the contrast and saturation can sometime be helpful.

[Wheeler McDougal Jr.]

Douglas
I like your repost much better tnan the original and it does help give it the immensity that I experienced. Thanks so much for the help.
Mac

[Markus Jais]

Douglas' repost is a great idea and I like it a lot. Sometimes, with some landscape shots, it also helps to convert it to B&W, although I probably wouldn't do that here. Markus

[Morkel Erasmus]

Some good suggestions made already, Wheeler. I've found that in order to really capture the grandness of a vista you need to be shooting slightly down at it. Here the 'depth' is almost on the same level as your 'current' position which makes it hard for an external viewer to get a sense of the depth in the scene. The lack of a discernable anchor or foreground interest compounds this as there's no way for the person viewing in 2-D to gauge the scale and depth. The light has already been mentioned - and the pano crop with added contrast/sats is better, but doens't save the shot IMHO.

[Jay Gould]

I agree with Morkel that the RP is nice; doesn't save the image. In front of where you were standing, there are some rocks on the right and a small bush on the left. Had you walked to either one, shot from a very low position, they could have acted as an anchor and you would have a very different image.

ISO 100 works; why f/5.6? You almost guaranteed that you would have softness in the foreground and background.

Finally, by shooting in AV, you allowed the camera to decide the best exposure based upon your choice of ISO and SS. It looks so bright I am actually surprised that the camera opened up all the way to f/5.6!

You are shooting RAW; why the WB settings?

What did the histogram look like at the time of capture?

Finally, if you open this in a program like Breeze Browser, you would be able to see your point of focus. Perhaps you can post an image showing the histogram and point of focus to allow us to further assist you.

[Wheeler McDougal Jr.]

Thanks Jay and Morkel, I could not agree more with your thoughts. I am surprised that I took this image in apeture priority as I seldem shoot in that mode. As I said I had been in a canyon just before I took this image and I think, if I remember correctly, that the background light was changing drastically from shot to shot and so I took the camera offf manual mode and switched to appertue priority. After reading you suggestions I threw this image away and have reposted a slightly different version of the scene. It was shot at 26mm instead of the 70mm as the first one and I was behind a barbed wire fence which does give it a bit of an anchor. I can do little to change the f/5.6 without reshooting it and being back in Illinois now, a repeat is not possible. What f stop would you have suggested some where arount f/11?

Jay I am a little confused by your comment 'You are shooting RAW; why the WB settings?' Could you clarify what I might have done in this reguard?

I did some post PP on this image such as a pano crop to rid the image of so much sky and added some contrast and a levels adjustment to darken the image a bit. I think this is an all around better result and I might say gets a lot closer to the way the scene really appeared. The shooting info is below:
Nikon D4
2012:06:25 13:26:29
24-70mm @ 70mm
70mm (in 35mm film)
1/800 sec, f/5.6
Mode: Av
Metering: Multi-segment
ISO: 100
AF mode: AF-C
White balance: SUNNY+2
Flash: Off
File size: 19.3MB
Image size: 160 x 120
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Contrast: Normal
Lat: 44°11'14.778"N
Long: 106°49'34.206"W
Altitude: 1832m

Thanks again for all your help.

Mac

[Jay Gould]

SEE BELOW!


Thanks Jay and Morkel, I could not agree more with your thoughts. I am surprised that I took this image in apeture priority as I seldem shoot in that mode. As I said I had been in a canyon just before I took this image and I think, if I remember correctly, that the background light was changing drastically from shot to shot and so I took the camera offf manual mode and switched to appertue priority. After reading you suggestions I threw this image away and have reposted a slightly different version of the scene. It was shot at 26mm instead of the 70mm as the first one and I was behind a barbed wire fence which does give it a bit of an anchor. I can do little to change the f/5.6 without reshooting it and being back in Illinois now, a repeat is not possible. What f stop would you have suggested some where arount f/11?

Jay I am a little confused by your comment 'You are shooting RAW; why the WB settings?' Could you clarify what I might have done in this reguard?

The short answer is that WB has not effect on the image that you see AFTER your download to your computer and before you apply any post processing. When you change your WB from Auto to a setting that gives you a pretty jpeg on the back of your camera, all you are doing is giving yourself a pretty jpeg on the back of the camera. AND, often times that can be very misleading.

I do not know if you follow Artie's posting on his Blog and in his Bulletins. So often Artie will comment on how washed out the image looks on the LCD. So What!

If you are truly using the LCD for what it can provide, a histogram so that you know you have pushed everything as far to the right as possible without blowing out the highlights, and secondarily to show focus point data, then setting your in camera to "SUNNY +2" to give you a highly saturated image on the back of the camera is only going to show you a highly saturated image on the back of the camera - not what you in fact captured.

There is a wealth of information on the internet and here in BPN; all you have to do is take the time to search. This is from a very quick search; I simply put white balance into the search box:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/100323-What-picture-style?highlight=white+balance

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/29854-Help-me-with-WB-settings-for-birding?highlight=white+balance+%2B+RAW

I did some post PP on this image such as a pano crop to rid the image of so much sky and added some contrast and a levels adjustment to darken the image a bit. I think this is an all around better result and I might say gets a lot closer to the way the scene really appeared.

For me, the first thing I would do since you didn't choose to shoot from a position where the fence was not in the scene would be to use Content Aware in Photoshop and eliminate the fence!

The shooting info is below:
Nikon D4
2012:06:25 13:26:29
24-70mm @ 70mm
70mm (in 35mm film)
1/800 sec, f/5.6
Mode: Av
Metering: Multi-segment
ISO: 100
AF mode: AF-C
White balance: SUNNY+2
Flash: Off
File size: 19.3MB
Image size: 160 x 120
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Contrast: Normal
Lat: 44°11'14.778"N
Long: 106°49'34.206"W
Altitude: 1832m

Thanks again for all your help.

Mac