Jewel fall

[habakuk]

I've posted a workshop about this shot in the workshop section. It's one more attempt to go Versace's road to postprocessing. A very crude one, but I have to take that step by step...


cheers
®

[eob]

Very nice metamorphosis from a bland original file to a sophisticated look that you obtained in this version. I think this proves that even the most unassuming photo can be greatly improved by well-chosen post-processing technique.

[aprilS]

An exquisite result and amazing transformation!

I especially like the leaves trailing down into the falls top right. My eye went from bottom to top, and they are a delightful discovery.

As for "step-by-step", you should see how dog-eared, battered, and marked-up my copy of the book is already; and I've not yet made it past Chapter 3. But his closing notes at the end of that chapter give me hope: "Children play, they don't take notes. Adults take notes..."

[habakuk]

Thank you.

@eob: When I saw this scene, I shot it with a certain effect for the final shot in mind. I wanted the water to show that brilliance I saw there. So I went for the proper shutter speed, and made compromises in the exposure. I knew I will have enough reserve with the RAW format. So, I think not every shot can be brought to something really appealing, but every shot that has at least the element of central importance properly captured.

@April: oh, I haven't read as far as of yet... but I love that quote: yes, I want to play with the new knowledge I got from the book, I also don't work with the book open. I just apply whatever I have memorized. And I accept some deviation from the shown path... later, I will go back to the book, lesrn some more and start playing with that again...

cheers
®
 

[eob]

You are right. Learning with the book closed means that you are not copying someone else's tricks. That way your results will be fresher and more authentic. Inspiration instead of plagiarism.

Of course, there are some instructional books (or DVDs) that are highly technical and if you want to learn something from them, you have to go "held by your hand" which means copying exact steps, but in this case, you only need a general idea and some inventiveness of your own.

[aprilS]

...but in this case, you only need a general idea and some inventiveness of your own.

Hmmm... I find this approach to digital processing so different from anything I've learned before, that after a few weeks I actually broke down and followed his steps verbatim on one set of images supplied with the DVD to get a better understanding of what he saw and why he made the choices he did.

I want to fully understand the options -- because they make sense to me -- so I can be free to apply or not, selectively, in any order, as seems appropriate.

It reminds me of learning in a wet darkroom.

[habakuk]

Well I did follow Versace's process in the book step by step once to get an idea of how to do it, and to compare my outcome with the one shown in the book. I only meant: I didn't try that again on this picture. I didn't just switch the raw material, but picked a new shot and tried "blindly" what I have learned, not using the book.

Doing it once or several times "by the numbers" is certainly a good thing to teach the skills. After that, it is a healthy thing to try it on your own, make it your own, allow deviation and evolution. But I'll tell you more in the workshop posting what I actually did in this photograph.

I think his approach is much more than just a postprocessing concept - it's much more about determining the vital aspects of the shot and then use postporcessing to bring them out.

cheers
®
 

[aprilS]

I think his approach is much more than just a postprocessing concept - it's much more about determining the vital aspects of the shot and then use postporcessing to bring them out.

Oh, with this I absolutely agree. It's been very instructive for me to contemplate an image I want to work on and try to remember what I thought I saw, and want the viewer to see, or to realize I didn't really have a clear vision at the time.

[Ted Byrne]

Okay, truth be told, I have an unnatural prejudice against monochrome. Oh I have developed justifications which seem to make my objections credible... But... well anywayzzzz.... The thing is about prejudice is that at sometime or another, someone slaps a fat cod of reason into your face and sets you reeling with an inability to comeback... to respond... to defend.

This image is a fat cod. "WHHHHHHHAAAAAP!" It goes leaving me agape. And to season that cod with insult, you posted the original just to demonstrate how superior the B&W image is. Sigh.... Okay, perhaps... just perhaps... the monochrome quarry has not been sufficiently mined. And maybe... maybe in the hands and feelings of a master it might still be possible to eek out a monochrome masterpiece. And, well, of course this is it.

I am now going to wipe cod off of my face.

Ted

[habakuk]

It might help here that it is not really a pure B/W version... I used a slight toning as the pure B/W didn't had enough warmth for my liking... I also experimented with other color variations, but this one was my choice.

Ted, I promise, the day you start posting B/W or duotone-versions, I will start to post highly saturated photos.


Thanks for your comment and I take it as a really special thing to please you with such a shot.

cheers
®

[habakuk]

After many feedbacks, I came to the conclusion I should try to have some more dark area on the bottom of this shot. Here's one attempt to do so. However, I have a hard time to decided of this now improves the composition or not. How do you judge?



cheers
®

[eob]

I think it does. In the first version above, that area has been mostly left "neglected" - and I think it is important in that it frames or contains the lighter tones of water on the bottom of the fountain. This way, the darker area at the bottom stops my eye from wandering off and makes me return my attention to the center of your composition.

[aprilS]

While I've (recently) learned there's a "rule" about containing the eye in the frame, I have yet to decide whether I agree with that idea.

In this case, I prefer the water rushing toward me. Then I'm inside the image, getting my feet wet!

The second version makes me feel more like an observer, from a distance.

One thing I do like in version 2 is a touch more whitewater at the lower left edge, for balance.

[habakuk]

After a while with the two versions, I think I am leaning towards April's view: I think adding the darker border at the bottom might balance the whole shot a bit better, however, it also separates me as a viewer much more strongly from the scene. And I felt more involved, more related and sort of intimated with the waters in the first shot.

I also take you didn't feel the addition was a cheap photoshop job, right? The original frame doesn't include that darker part, so I had to manufacture it all in PS.

cheers
®

[eob]

The original frame was totally different, but no, I think that adding or "manufacturing" elements in an artistic shot is nothing wrong (as opposed to photo-journalistic or documental shots). Besides, your manipulation is very subtle and inconspicuous and it supports the content rather then overbearing it.