Taking your time.

[Wayland]

I've been asked about this picture a few times so to kick this new part of the forum off I thought I would tell you a bit about it.

It was taken in Norway on my way to Lofoten to work for the Summer. It's a spot near Lønsdal not far from the E6, just north of the Arctic circle. It's late July and the time was coming up to 10pm.

I wanted a picture for one of the opening pages of my website and had this shot in mind but it would have to be set up a bit.

First of all a layer of river gravel was spread on the rock surface and we collected sticks and branches that had been washed downstream in the floods. One of the sturdier branches was wedged under the rock with a stone to provide a pot crane and the pot was hung with a small piece of chain that lives in my billy for just such occasions.

You'll probably be disappointed to here that I lit the fire with a match, but it was only one at least.

Photographically the challenge was to balance the light from the fire with the natural light and also use a long enough exposure to blur the water too.

The exposure was made at iso. 100, 1.3 Seconds at f22. Any shorter and the water would be too static any longer would be difficult for me to hold the position. The camera is of course on a tripod and Debbie fired the shutter when I was in position.

Now comes the tricky bit.

I nearly always shoot on raw to get the maximum quality that the camera can deliver but it also lets you do some things that are not really possible in other ways.

First of all you can re-set the white balance and secondly you have some control of the "exposure" as well, after the shot has been taken.

This meant I could take one version of the shot that was corrected for the foreground with it's warm fire light and make a second version corrected for the colder light of the background and make that a little darker to enhance the twilight effect.

These two versions of the shot were then manually blended together In PhotoShop to create the image that you see and as I had originally visualised it.


Feel free to ask any questions and I'll answer as best I can.

 

[Tadpole]

These two versions of the shot were then manually blended together In PhotoShop to create the image that you see and as I had originally visualised it.


Feel free to ask any questions and I'll answer as best I can.

When you say manually Blended in photoshop, did you make two layers and blend the two, or two layers and two masks, change the Opacity to suit before combining the two. or some other mystic practices. I've never managed to blend anything very well in PS with out the resulting mud on mud with a muddy sky

 

[Shewie]

Can I ask what lens you took it with Gary, was it a tele or prime ?

 

[maddave]

I really like this shot. I have a similar one of when we were trying to blow a tyre back on to a trailer rim with butane gas and a prayer. I'm sure Womble_Lancs will be along soon to show you. As for camera settings, I was far too frightened to even speak !! LOL!!

 

[Wayland]

When you say manually Blended in photoshop, did you make two layers and blend the two, or two layers and two masks, change the Opacity to suit before combining the two. or some other mystic practices. I've never managed to blend anything very well in PS with out the resulting mud on mud with a muddy sky

The two versions were loaded as separate layers and then the foreground layer was masked out completely (Black on the mask.)

On that mask I then used a circular gradient in white, starting from the fire to to bring the warm image back in, but fading as it got further away from the fire.

Then using a soft brush set to 25% white I started to brush in the warm light on all the surfaces that would normally reflect that fire light and used some black to erase it where the light would not have fallen.

I hope that makes sense.

Can I ask what lens you took it with Gary, was it a tele or prime ?

It was taken at about 21mm on my 17 -40mm F4L. I was using a 5D so that is a wide angle on the full frame.

I forgot to mention earlier that because the camera was angled down I needed to apply some perspective correction to the layers to stop all the trees falling over but that is why the billy can looks a little egg shaped.


Oh and before some wag beats me to it, I'm not lighting a spliff, that's my blow poker which is why the fire is flaring up so well..

 

[Shewie]

Oh and before some wag beats me to it, I'm not lighting a spliff, that's my blow poker which is why the fire is flaring up so well..

Funny you should say that, my boss walked behind me and asked "What`s he smoking ?"

 

[Tadpole]

The two versions were loaded as separate layers and then the foreground layer was masked out completely (Black on the mask.)

On that mask I then used a circular gradient in white, starting from the fire to to bring the warm image back in, but fading as it got further away from the fire.

Then using a soft brush set to 25% white I started to brush in the warm light on all the surfaces that would normally reflect that fire light and used some black to erase it where the light would not have fallen.

I hope that makes sense.

Perfect sense, I'd forgotten about gradients,

 

[Wallenstein]

Gary, would an HDR image achieve the same result under this type of varying lighting with less manual intervention?

 

[Wayland]

Possibly, but I wanted to accentuate the different lighting rather than get an averaged effect.

 

[maddave]

Ahh !! Here's the pic I was talking about...




Bloody woke me up I can tell ya !!

 

[Shewie]

Nice stove Dave

compact

 

[maddave]

Nice stove Dave

compact

Boils a litre in under 3 mins by the way

 

[Spikey DaPikey]

Was a tad impressive

 

[Shewie]

Have that lads eyebrows grown back yet ?

 

[Scots_Charles_River]

Wayland,

Great photo, pity it has been edited, thought it was an amazing 'natural' photo, could you post the two originals so I can compare them ?

How bad are the mozzies in the Lofotens then ?

Ta

Nick

 

[maddave]

Have that lads eyebrows grown back yet ?

Them's my eyebrows


Luckily I still have em

 

[Wayland]

Wayland,

Great photo, pity it has been edited, thought it was an amazing 'natural' photo, could you post the two originals so I can compare them ?

How bad are the mozzies in the Lofotens then ?

Ta

Nick

The two versions are no more "original" than the end result.

Every camera, digital or film, produces an image that is processed in some way, if you take the Jpg. file from a compact camera, it has been processed from the raw sensor data by a pre-programed computer chip in the camera.

That chip is programed by a technician that has never seen the scene that you are photographing and can only guess what it might look like. He does not even know if it is a landscape or the face of a baby, statistically it is likely to be the latter and that is what he will probably program it for.

Every camera, every manufacturer, has a different program to produce results chosen to appeal to the marketing demographic for that model of camera.

Every film has a different characteristic curve suited to the customer base for that film and every laboratory processes and "edits" the image in order to make it visible to our eyes.

The only difference between my image and the real scene before me is that my picture has been interpreted and rendered under the control of a human being with 25 years of photographic experience, who has actually see the original scene, and not a computer chip. I wonder which is more "natural".

A picture that is not "edited" is no more real than a series of ones and zeros. They say there are 10 kinds of photographer in the world, those that understand binary maths and those that don't.




The mozzies in the Lofotens are not too bad in late summer because they get a reasonable breeze by the way.

 

[Tadpole]

There are no “natural photographs”, Even in the days of old-fashioned 35mm film, someone would have looked at the negative, and made a judgement call on the exposure, forever changing the over all look; when it was printed, someone else would have made another judgement call on the printing. (yes, even using Boots film labs)
Since the process was invented, people have been altering the image to make it ‘look right’. My grandfather shot in black and white, I’m sure there wasn’t an image that he didn’t edit, burning in highlights, dodging shadows, masking faces to make them look slimmer.
We just have it a lot easier with Paintshop and Photoshop, electronic tool that are the equivalent of the wire and cardboard tools of the old home developers.
Truly great photographs are rarely taken, they were mostly created.
Wayland set out to create that image, worked hard at the shoot, and with a few simple “old fashioned” editing techniques by his skill and experience, albeit applied using a computer, he created the image he wanted.
After all, if you are going to complain about it being unnatural why not add polarising filters, flash, tripods, auto shutters, spot metering to the list of unnatural add-ons used in photography.

 

[BOD]

That may be so but us point and shoot people do feel better when we learn that it was "enhanced" or whatever you wish to call it.

If you tell us it was not then we feel so inadequate as photographers.

That said I think it is a fabulous and evocative photograph. It is a bushcraft photograpic icon.

Well done Wayland

 

[Tadpole]

I think a lot of people forget that what they see with their eyes are “edited” by their brain, and linked with smells sounds personal feelings, and a larger overall experience that is never ever recorded in that 1/250th of a second when you take a picture.
This is why most great photos are “fiddled with” to recreate that ‘feeling’, something, an essence a spirit, that even if you have never been to the place where the picture was taken you can understand straight away.