Autumn in the Berkshires

[Richard Lovison]

http://richardlovison.com/photos/berkshires3.jpg
© reserved 2008-2009, Richard Lovison

This was taken last Fall in the Berkshires of western Massachusetts.

Camera Info:
Olympus E-1; ZD 40-150mm @113mm; 1/60 sec f8; tripod; manual exposure; manual focusing; ISO 100

RAW Conversion:
Olympus Studio 2 software; 5300K -1 tint; contrast 0; saturation 0; sharpening 0; aRGB color space

CS2 Info:
Levels adjustment; highlight color correction; resized; Nik output sharpening; converted to sRGB

[Robert Amoruso]

Richard,

Being from New England, I spent many a times in the Berkshires in the fall and you did well composing this please scene.

I like the FG in the shadow, transitioning to the sunlite area, then again to dark. Where I start to lose it is the large dark area and the birght sky which draws the eye too much in my opinion.

I have cropped the repost to what I feel is the strongest part of the image. I also applied a mind curve to lighten it.

[Dave Mills]

Nice job with the crop Robert and making the image pop.

[Richard Lovison]

Thanks Robert for your input. I had so much trouble with this image and couldn't seem to find a way to present it. I loved the way the light played with the landscape but every time I went back to try and make a print I was dissatisfied. It never occurred to me to exclude the sky. Duh. :) Thanks for sharing your perspective which I feel offers an improvement.

[Rich Ikerd]

Beautiful fall colors Richard. The crop suggested by Robert really brings out the colors and does the image justice.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Richard,
I do like Robert's crop and re-work.......does emphasize the rolling hill and colors......but I decided to show you something that would have worked with my signature split ND filter........I applied a linear burn layer at 100% opacity to the sky.......I also hit it with a bit of shadow highlights.......because I liked the way Robert brought out the shadow area......but I also wanted to tame some of the whites in the sky......a slight crop of the sky was the final touch. You could have used the filter in this instance.....to minimize the PP work.......but I think I was able to pull it off. If you didn't have the info there......it wouldn't have worked........as always.....I offer this to try and work on in the field.......when all else fails......try the PP work.

[Richard Lovison]

Hey Richard,
...but I decided to show you something that would have worked with my signature split ND filter........I applied a linear burn layer at 100% opacity to the sky.......I also hit it with a bit of shadow highlights.......because I liked the way Robert brought out the shadow area......but I also wanted to tame some of the whites in the sky......a slight crop of the sky was the final touch. You could have used the filter in this instance.....to minimize the PP work.......but I think I was able to pull it off.

Really? You think you pulled it off even with all those unnatural hues in the sky? Most likely your methods would have given far superior results with the original tiff but I can't help but think your response is an advertisement for your ND filter.

[Robert Amoruso]

Really? You think you pulled it off even with all those unnatural hues in the sky? Most likely your methods would have given far superior results with the original tiff but I can't help but think your response is an advertisement for your ND filter.

Richard,

You have misconstrued what Roman is referring to. He is not selling a Graduate ND Filter in his signature, he is recommending their use as it helps to balance the exposure better when the sky is bright and the FG darker by lowering the dynamic range of the scene. Better to do this with the exposure then later in PS.

GND filters are available from a variety of sources but not Roman. As far as the PS work on they sky, it is all a matter of taste and the point is to demonstrate a technique. Whether you employ it is your decision. And yes, many times any work we do on a small jpg skews color. You need to take that into consideration when evaluating recommendations and how you might implement them in the image.

I hope this helps to explain what Roman was talking about.:)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Richard,
Robert beat me to the explanation(Thanks!).........I don't actually sell any filter nor am I sponsored by any manufacturer.......I was trying to show the effect the filter would have in the field......partly because PP work can skew colors or tones.......not sure though as the PP effect only really changes the tones.......is your monitor calibrated? Mine is......let's see if others feel the color is off also. You can also pull back on the opacity......this was done at 100%.....so pulling back is also something you may want to explore.

[Richard Lovison]

Roman,

I apologize for my misunderstanding and yes, my monitor is calibrated using a Spyder.

What I don't understand is why you push 2-3 stop ND filters that severely limit dynamic range in a time when pros are crying out to camera manufacturers for even more dynamic range. ND filters were a great tool in the days when pros shot color slide film which had a very limited dynamic range compared to color or B&W negative film. I can understand their usage when the range of light in the scene being photographed exceeds what can be recorded by the sensor (like in sunsets and sunrises) but in my example, this is not the case. I know dark skies can offer drama but does it have to be that way in every shot?

Now before I go on I want to make it clear I don't feel my original image is anything but average... certainly in comparison to what is offered in this forum. I just don't get the obsession with the brightness of the sky in my original image. It's not overexposed, there is detail available and the image offers a nice dynamic range in my opinion. I feel the sky is a part of the image as the clouds are responsible for the shaded landscape though I feel now there could be less of it. Robert felt the sky pulled his attention away from the stronger part of the image and I understood that position and liked what he offered as an option.

Your re-work flattened the image by reducing the dynamic range and added a blue cast. I don't understand why that would be more acceptable or better. If your intent was just to offer an alternative technique, then mere mention of it would have been enough instead of presenting the image that you did... it's kind of insulting even though I don't think you mean to be.

Anyway, I'm off to figure out why my images have disappeared from the forum... something askew in my hosting account no doubt.

Richard

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Richard,
Limit the dynamic range........and push filters........maybe because it's 99% of the pros use them or will do an HDR to capture the entire dynamic range......neither of which you did in your post .....but I am seeing a bit of a pattern with you.......as you have difficulty handling critiques as was evident in Artie's critique and you are obviously selectively reading mine.......as I mentioned very clearly.....the correction was to show the possibility when a split ND is used correctly. My recommendation to you is to post your images on Flckr.......where no one gives a bad critique......that way, your self professed anger......as explained to Ed Vatza in the macro forum.....will not be an issue. Now, I might be insulting.........but considering you expect me to work on your image....from a jpeg.....in the few minutes of my free time that I have......and you will nit pick on the blue cast(easily fixed btw)........well show me where you have any detail in your whites in the original post! I don't see any/very little in your post......so blaming me for not correcting it in PP'ing.......when the whole time I recommended doing it right in the field...not sure where you want to go with this?
If I was going to be insulting.......I would have simply said that there is no detail in the sky.....next time get the exposure right in the field......by using a split ND.......which all pro's use (or an HDR)...then the image may have been average.........as presented....well below average. Better?

[Richard Lovison]

Hi Richard,
Limit the dynamic range........and push filters........maybe because it's 99% of the pros use them or will do an HDR to capture the entire dynamic range......neither of which you did in your post

First off, if you wrote in complete sentences, I might have a better understanding of what you are trying to say. Just my opinion Roman.

I captured the entire dynamic range. My highlights are not blown out nor are my shadows. Whether or not you think the image has any merit or whether you like it or not is another story.



.....but I am seeing a bit of a pattern with you.......as you have difficulty handling critiques as was evident in Artie's critique and you are obviously selectively reading mine.......as I mentioned very clearly.....the correction was to show the possibility when a split ND is used correctly.

No, I only have problems with those that express their critiques poorly or sit too high on the horse.



Now, I might be insulting.........but considering you expect me to work on your image....from a jpeg.....in the few minutes of my free time that I have......and you will nit pick on the blue cast(easily fixed btw)........well show me where you have any detail in your whites in the original post! I don't see any/very little in your post......so blaming me for not correcting it in PP'ing.......when the whole time I recommended doing it right in the field...not sure where you want to go with this?

I don't expect you to work on my image. If you don't have the time then don't. It seems like you have an issue with your method of critiquing being critiqued.



If I was going to be insulting.......I would have simply said that there is no detail in the sky.....next time get the exposure right in the field......by using a split ND.......which all pro's use (or an HDR)...then the image may have been average.........as presented....well below average. Better?

I'm sorry Roman, this is where your critique falls apart. If you think there is no detail in the sky then I suggest you get a different monitor. I GOT THE EXPOSURE RIGHT IN THE FIELD. There are no blown highlights or shadows. Check the numbers. I chose not to use an ND filter because I didn't wish to add more drama to the sky. If that makes it a poor image in your opinion, FINE! I have no problem with that.

[Paul Marcellini]

The scene is nice, some great fall color. I like the layers you have as well.

But, I am going to say, Roman is pushing a gnd because it helps with the technology we have at hand NOW. Go ahead and ask for better dynamic range, and if you find an outlet that gets camera makers to listen, please share. But that doesn't make the camera you have in hand any better. SO, use a gnd or double expose.

And it looks like you had most detail in the sky, so maybe you could get away without a gnd. Either way, that sky needs darkening from an aesthetic point of view. It is the sore thumb of the picture. The band of shadow underneath it only makes the contrast stronger.

Our eyes are drawn first to bright areas, then those of high contrast, then overly dark areas. So, that sky may work if the rest of the scene was bright, maybe a high key image. But as is, I would take Robert's first, then Roman's.

If you like the way you presented it, great, cause hopefully you take pictures for yourself. But try to market it for print sales, stock, or a photo contest and I beleive it won't go anywhere.

And a note, we are here to help, unpaid. Its fine to question, but why push? Roman is a great guy and great photographer, you should listen to what he has to say and if you disagree fine, but watch how you write things. Tone of voice doesn't translate well in type.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Thanks Robert for your input. I had so much trouble with this image and couldn't seem to find a way to present it. I loved the way the light played with the landscape but every time I went back to try and make a print I was dissatisfied. It never occurred to me to exclude the sky. Duh. Thanks for sharing your perspective which I feel offers an improvement.
Hey Richard,<O:pI will try to explain this more clearly and will offer a final solution.<O:p
You profess to not liking the sky and eliminating it "offered an improvement" in your opinion. I offered an alternative way to try and possibly salvage the sky and you accuse me of peddling ND filters. Once you realized that I do not sell or endorse any filter, you tried to offer a meek apology with further attacks on my proposed possible correction. I'm fine with that, until I realized again, that you disliked the sky in your original post, but are now defending it. Why? Are you telling me that my correction didn't bring out more details in your whites? Are you saying to me that the split ND wouldn't have worked? I stand by my statements. Your offer that the histogram is correct is meaningless because you thought your sky lacked something and were fine with a total elimination of it.
<O:p
My guess is that you are making yourself feel better by saying I sit on a high horse but my view from up here on the horse appears that someone has an overinflated opinion of their work and admittedly can't handle when someone expresses otherwise. My whole motivation here as a volunteer was to offer an alternative to you over Robert's crop but you somehow you misinterpreted that. Your choice in this matter was to accept my recommendation or reject it and I am fine with that. <O:p

But fear not, I will not offer any more critiques on any of your images because of your admitted sensitivity to criticism.<O:p

[Richard Lovison]

Thank you Paul for clearing up my confusion and bringing some sanity to this. I'm sure Roman is a great guy and if I wasn't so sensitive to criticism, I might not reacted the way I did. Anyway, I'm still here plugging away trying to make sense of this. Here is my latest attempt at trying to improve upon my original post. If I haven't driven everyone away, is this a step in the right direction?

http://richardlovison.com/photos/hd.jpg

[Richard Lovison]

Hey Richard,<o>:pI will try to explain this more clearly and will offer a final solution.<o></o></o><o>:p</o><o>
<o></o>
My guess is that you are making yourself feel better by saying I sit on a high horse but my view from up here on the horse appears that someone has an overinflated opinion of their work and admittedly can't handle when someone expresses otherwise. My whole motivation here as a volunteer was to offer an alternative to you over Robert's crop but you somehow you misinterpreted that. Your choice in this matter was to accept my recommendation or reject it and I am fine with that. <o>:p</o>

Roman,

What the heck is this supposed to mean and I quote: "</o>but I decided to show you something that would have worked with my signature split ND filter." How am I supposed to interpret that? Sounds like you were selling something and you offered a poor alternative to my original post and then made an excuse for that because you have little time and you are a volunteer. My mistake based on your extremely poor writing.

And as for my overinflated opinion of myself... look to my other posts and responses in the macro forum. Seems I took criticism rather well and worked with it.

Sounds to me as you are using your volunteer status as an excuse for your poor critiques. At this point it doesn't matter. This place isn't for me and I knew long ago... should have trusted my instincts. Stuff it where the sun doesn't shine Roman.
<o>


</o>

[Roman Kurywczak]

Funny, looks like my re-post without the cast. Much more detail in the whites. Wonder where you got that idea? As for you handling it well in the macro forum.....do you think Julie felt that way when you had a meltdown there? Let me guess.......when you were a kid.....and things didn't go your way......you took the ball and went home.

[Dave Mills]

Hey Richard...Much more detail in the whites! Makes the image alot stronger and adds drama.

[Richard Lovison]

Funny, looks like my re-post without the cast. Much more detail in the whites. Wonder where you got that idea? As for you handling it well in the macro forum.....do you think Julie felt that way when you had a meltdown there? Let me guess.......when you were a kid.....and things didn't go your way......you took the ball and went home.

LOL, Roman you did it! You finally said the right thing that got me laughing. Yeah, I think I do remember a time where I did grab the ball and go home. I'm laughing so hard tears are coming down. :)

OK, I'm flying the white flag.

Roman, if you would have just explained yourself better in your first post. I felt your repost was a poor alternative to mine even though I understood you felt darkening the sky would help. I actually believed you were just trying to sell me an ND filter.

All you needed to do was write: "Richard, if you want to have another option, darken the sky as I feel it leads the eye away from the stronger part of the image and you can do this in the field with a neutral density filter or do it in photoshop using such and such technique." I had a difficult time taking you seriously because of the quality of your re-post.

Roman, obviously I took your advice in my last re-post of the image. I did three RAW conversions of the same image, one normal exposure, one at 1 stop underexposure and one at 1 stop overexposure and combined the three in Photomatrix. Hopefully my attempt is an improvement. I'm going to have to make a print to see how I feel.

[Richard Lovison]

So I printed the revised image and I'm still not happy with it. I saw something but I failed to capture whatever that was. Roman, you were right. As originally presented it was a below average image and even with corrections it still fails. I'm not sure why I even posted it in the first place as and wasted everyone's time.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Richard,
OK........we both got off course....let's just let it go........I will offer this.......I do like your re-post best...remember the detail is there........so as the PP work improves in the future......you may have a different opinion then. Learning is never a waste of time and that's why we are all here.
This is over, so let's move on.

[John Hawkins]

"but I decided to show you something that would have worked with my signature split ND filter." means Roman is known for his use of ND filters, hence "his signature". At least that is my take on it. Man.... I'm here to learn, and I appreciate all the fellow Photographers who give of their time, expertise, knowledge etc. For gratis. I've spent good money to learn less and when asked questions, was told to buy whatever they were selling. I know I don't give all these guys and gals the thanks they deserve. I take them for granted and shouldn't. So let me do it here and now...Thank you everyone and take solice that at least 1 novice out here really respects your opinions and critiques. I know I am better for it. Not only a better photographer, but I like to think a better person. I don't know of any other profession that is this unselfish. Richard, take a pill before signing on next time LOL.
I had to speak up sorry,
John