Running Water

[sparker1]

Waterfall of Provo River, taken recently along Mirror Lake Highway. (Used 3 stops of neutral density filter. Still, bright sun will over-expose shots of water.)

[JP]

[goofball]

one thing i am finding out is i get much beter results shooting w/ my contrast set as low as possible (-4 on my 400d). it has really helped to keep highlights from blowing out and givees me the maximum shadow detail (really a little muddy, but that is where editing comes in). then in post processing i can push my tones around where i want them, bringing down the shadows so they aren;t so muddy yet keeping some detail and texture, while being able to keep the highlights from going bulletproof and losing any texture at all. unless i want to lose texture in either. i prefer having the choice to make myself instead of having it made for me.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Goof, you shooting in RAW?

[goofball]

Goof, you shooting in RAW?

yeah, that way my edits are non-destructive if i wanna print to hang. just using dpp for now unitl i can afford lightroom and probably elements. plus, i have always been about maximum quality and control. i miss control strips, iso and exposure tests, densitometers, all my stinky acids and alkalis that got me coughing blood one summer before i decided to tong it and get a respirator... ahhhhh, good times. good times.

[CarpeyBiggs]

yeah, that way my edits are non-destructive if i wanna print to hang. just using dpp for now unitl i can afford lightroom and probably elements. plus, i have always been about maximum quality and control. i miss control strips, iso and exposure tests, densitometers, all my stinky acids and alkalis that got me coughing blood one summer before i decided to tong it and get a respirator... ahhhhh, good times. good times.

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go. You realize though, that your settings on your camera don't mean anything when you shoot RAW. For instance, your -4 contrast doesn't do anything to the image, except for the preview on the back of your camera.

As for software, I highly recommend Photoshop CS3. Lightroom is good as well, but Photoshop is a necessity if you want to print yourself. The new camera raw 4.2 is pretty impressive stuff.

[goofball]

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go. You realize though, that your settings on your camera don't mean anything when you shoot RAW. For instance, your -4 contrast doesn't do anything to the image, except for the preview on the back of your camera.

As for software, I highly recommend Photoshop CS3. Lightroom is good as well, but Photoshop is a necessity if you want to print yourself. The new camera raw 4.2 is pretty impressive stuff.

yeah, i know the shot setting doesn't really matter. it is only one interpretation of the capture, so to speak, right ? the raw can be pushed or pulled post processing to whatever other setting the software has to offer as well.

but it makes a huge difference in my whole work flow by starting out so flat, whether shot flat or bumped down in dpp. i have taken to starting it flat in processing and adjusting my rgb curves as well as my raw. i've found it much easier to start w/ a lifeless image, just data, no interpretation. and from there push my values around to achieve what the image tells me it wants to be.

i trial'd lr and liked it, even though it edits universally. i relly want that local control ! case in point - that damn bush in the upper left of the water fall. it needs to come down. i look at that image and my eye goesa right to it. it is just soooo expensive, this digital world ! and now i'm trying to find an affordable way to scan my old 35mm b/w and still get results i would be pleased w/. NOTHING will ever beat a silver halide print though, in my opinion.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I always find it fulfilling when you discover a new technique that you become really confident with. I really like the final image, and that bush in the corner? I didn't even notice it until you said something.

[goofball]

As for software, I highly recommend Photoshop CS3. Lightroom is good as well, but Photoshop is a necessity if you want to print yourself. The new camera raw 4.2 is pretty impressive stuff.

just downloaded photoshop cs3. pretty nice.... all the raw edits of lr, plus local control. now that hot spot is tolerable !

[asdf]

a

[R]

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

[goofball]

I need to take a photo shop class.....

I took this in Provo Canyon yesterday.

photoshop is nice, but nothing beats good lighting and good composition - and the ability to capture both together. cameras and software are really the least important foctors in my opinion. developing a good eye, being able to visualize teh final result from teh beginning will improve anyones photos greatly.

a lot of the time we are stuck having to take what we get when we're there. visiting and revisiting a locale in order to get it under the best light and conditions, shooting it from different angles, different crops, different focal lengths, is often what is needed though to get a really spectacular shot.

the only thing that separates a pro form an amateur is patience and the ability to consistently produce quality images from the understanding of light and composition. you don't need to make money from it to be a pro. and looking at others work is really helpful. understanding how they got that great shot will tell you how to get yours.

keep up the good work !

[goofball]

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?

[Bo_Beck]

Taken in Red Hollow following meltoff from a snow storm

[stefan]

oooo ... very nice bo

[sparker1]

Incredible.

[Bo_Beck]

Another of my personal favorite shots...I know, I know! Its not the typical water, but does it count?

[R]

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?

16-bit files are huge, since colors (red, green, blue) are each represented with 4086 values instead of 256.

As far as the RAW files from the D1 are concerned, I find that the biggest differences between RAW and JPEG are noise and color rendition. The JPEG engine in the original D1 is very primitive compared to Adobe's RAW converter. The files still aren't up to the quality from the D1H/X, for example, but they are certainly usable.

I agree, of course, with the post about light, composition, the moment, and the effort being paramount. A great moment with a cheap point-and-shoot always trumps a knees-locked, high-noon snapshot with a D2XS, always.

[waltny]

Got some overexposure with hanging the shutter trying to get some milky water.

[hallkc]

I stopped the flow of water a little, I like the effect of stopped water more than running water.