-- Jake Primgaard (jake@bluegrass.net), January 08, 1999

Answers

This image was taken with an F3 on tripod using a Tokina 400 F5.6 on Fuji Superia 100, exposure unrecorded. It was a very stormy day and we were just coming back from the farthest point out on the park access road (towards the Natural Arch area) and saw this fantastic sunset.

-- Jake Primgaard (jake@bluegrass.net), January 08, 1999.

The lighting in this image is extraordinary. Perhaps the dark clouds allowed the detail and the colors of the formation in the foreground. Most of the time this would wind up as a black blob unless a graduated filter was used. What did you expose for or better yet how did you determine the exposure?

-- Carroll Hughes (cghughes@erols.com), January 08, 1999.

Storm skies make for powerful landscapes and this one is no exception. I do, however, have to wonder about the reddish-brown color of the clouds, I've never seen them that color, and there is a certain put-together look to the earth/sky combination. The ground doesn't look like it is in the same light as the sky. The highlights on the top-right of many of the rocks on the ridge and what appear to be sweeping shadows in the foreground are puzzling to my eye - it just doesn't want to accept this as a one exposure image. This may be due to your scan or some computer jockeying you've done with the image file - please let me know what's going on.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), January 08, 1999.

You are both right! I have combined two exposures of the same scene to arrive at this level of lighting. Please don't take offense at my tactics, I wanted to get a feal for the realism of the image as seen by discerning individuals.

I had thought about this technique when I first got back into photography about two years ago and began scanning images and working with photoshop. I had researched investing in ND filters, but found the results to limiting (cutting of image areas that protrude into the split). The thought of using photoshop as a means of accomplishing the desired effect intrigued me a great deal. I have been working on technique that will allow the blending of image areas without being obvious for some time now.

There is a very interesting thread on this website concerning this very technique (http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=0001m3). Although it gets off subject to some degree, the consensus seemed to be that as long as nothing was added or subtracted that the process is no different than using an ND filter in front of the lens.

This image is two exposures (within seconds of each other) one exposing for the sky and one for the foreground. This is a very simple image to work with given the very defined line of the rock formations, and as one might imagine, this technique would certainly have limitations (choose your battles wisely).

Frank, as to your questioning the reddish-brown color of the sky. While in the Moab area on this trip I was amazed at that very phenomenon. The sky seemed to pick up some of the color of the ground, and that area is very reddish-brown indeed! In this instance though, since I have scanned from a negative this may very well be, to some degree, a simple matter of color calibration of the scan. Also, this film was developed by a less than "high end lab", it was done by the local grocery store one hour service. I am wondering if they did not somehow alter the manufacturers desired results in their handling of the film, since the film is far grainier than any 100 speed film should be.

Carroll and Frank both saw the irregularity of the image, but you are both photographers. My Wife often gives me an elbow in the ribs when I stick my nose in a picture and "take it apart". We see images differently. That's our nature. I ask myself when I look at this picture if it is not much more "scene as seen" than an image, as Carroll descirbes, with a foreground of a black blob. My wife and I marveled over this sunset, and as you are very well aware I am sure, the foreground of that magnificent scene was not a black blob.

For the non-photographer (the majority of our viewers), which image would be more satisfying?

-- Jake Primgaard (jake@bluegrass.net), January 08, 1999.

The effect doesnt look natural.

-- mike c (mike@eagleriver.com), January 08, 1999.

It seems that even after combining multiple images, your Photoshop levels probably still have lots of spikes - am I correct?

Was any dodging/burning type manipulations done to brighten up the lower right of the image or was that simply because there was a break in the dark clouds and another light source was present??? I hope you can explain this because to me that is the most feature that makes this picture look somewhat unreal. I'm really curious to hear your responses. Thanks.

-- Carlos Co (co@che.udel.edu), January 09, 1999.

I agree with Carlos, the part that bothers me is the exposure of the foreground. It looks as if there was another light source, like the moon, behind the viewer. I think the technique is perfectly valid as long as we are true to the original scene. The use of ND filters sometimes looks artificial to me, the trick is to capture the scene and overcome some of the limitations of the camera without creating something that was not there. Jake, do you remember the scene looking like there was this moonlight looking light on the foreground or were you just trying to recreate some detail rather than a "black blob" and maybe overdid it a bit?

-- Micheal F. Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 09, 1999.

I have to say good catch by Frank. My nature is to give the poster the benefit of the doubt and say great shot. I really think that this type of Photoshop fiddling lessens the value of this forum. If the photographer says that the general public (non-photograpers) doesnt care about how it was made, and says it's a great shot, I say there may be a job for you in advertising.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), January 09, 1999.

I think the sunset light in the image is pretty amazing, but unfortunately I don't find much in the composition that is graphically interesting.

The scan looks soft too.

Having asked the original question in this forum about this technique, I don't see how one can say that this way to squeezing the contrast range of the scene into a single picture can any more lessen the value of this forum than

1. using an ND filter 2. reducing contrast using B&W film and adjusted exposure/development (and maybe with contrast manipulation when printing) 3. using a contrast mask when printing

and so on. It doesn't seem to me that any of these techniques preserves the "integrity" of the scene any more than a straight exposure would.

In this image, the light on the foreground looks different because it IS different. The background is direct sunlight, filtered through clouds. The foreground is in the shadows, and so is lit from light reflected from the clouds and whatnot. This expectedly gives it sort of a blue cast, as it would have if this scene had been shot with slide film and a strong ND grad filter.

-- Peter Su (psu@jprc.com), January 09, 1999.

In response to Mike C: The effect is a result of a technique, which in my hands at least is new and as yet far from being perfected. I have been working for some time to arrive at this level of proficiency and obviously this level is still lacking.

Perhaps you have seen this technique many times before from a poster who is more accomplished as well as more silent than I?

As to the technical questions regarding PhotoShop specifics and the lighting involved. As I stated above, each image was captured within seconds of the other, the only difference being the aperture. What did the original scene look like? It was over six months ago. My choice of exposure from background to foreground also needs work, for me at least this is still in the developmental stage. I dont believe this film is true since I skimped and let the grocery store develop it, and I feel they somehow botched the job. When I originally scanned the negatives (after calibrating the scanner using a GretagMacbeth ColorChecker) the images had an odd color shift to them. Reciprocity failure? I did not record the exposure information, so I couldnt say. Once scanned, both images received identical treatment in PhotoShop prior to combining them in order to keep any shifts consistent. The final image was not sharpened. Please note, this was only an experiment, and in the future I intend to work only from professionally processed slides.

As to the comments made by Peter Su: He is correct. The foreground is in a different light. This is a primarily backlit scene with most of the ambient light coming from the sunset, although if I recall correctly, the sky overhead was not overcast (the clouds over the sunset were part of a line of thunderstorms far in the distance). Remember that as photographers we have a bias towards what our experience tells us is normal for the latitude of film.

Speaking to all involved, I feel that this technique is something that will, like it or not and accept it or not, become more prevalent. The scanner/computer is simply another stage in the evolution of photography. The invention of the split ND filter was simply an attempt to overcome the limitations of film, and the use of the computer to enhance and build upon that goal is only natural. Whether one accepts this technique or not is as relevant as whether or not one accepts the computer itself. The tool is here, and somebody will master the use of it in the application of this technique (if they havent already done so).

On a side note: (Consider the technology of the RGB meter in the Nikon F5. Take this technology x generations into the future and you may find an ultra high resolution digital camera that can create this very technique in camera by setting the sensitivity of each individual CCD based on the cameras assessment of the scenes lighting. Not all that far fetched given the current rate of technological advancement.)

The goals of our picture taking endeavors are as varied as are ourselves, and it is natural that we will all see this issue differently. Just as some fly fisherman feel emphatically that any thing other than dry fly fishing is not truly fly fishing, some photographers will feel that once the image is on film any further alterations are simply not acceptable. This is art, and in the end it is only the acceptance of the viewer/buyer that matters. This is not to say that intentional deception is acceptable, which I think may be what Mike Green may have felt that I have expressed. As the artist you can disclose anything about your work to your viewers that you wish, as well as withhold any of the same information. Do we owe it to the viewer to inform them of what type camera, lens, aperture, film, filter......etc. was used? The way I see it, that would depend on who the intended viewer or market is. If you are John Shaw and are creating a how-to book, then the answer is obvious. Would the average non-photog viewer care about the details of an images creation other than the knowledge that the scene was not added to or subtracted from?

Images in Nature is a fantastic collection of Thomas D. Mangelsens photography. In the book there are no disclosures of technical information, he merely states at the end that he uses a Nikon Camera and talks a little about some of the lenses he uses. If he has used a filter on an image in the book, should he have disclosed that to the viewer? This is just an example, Mr. Manglesens book is not about landscapes, nor am I insinuating that he has manipulated any images or even used filters. Just that his book is aimed at the average viewer, not necessarily the average photographer.

For those of you who have been to Mr. Mangelsens gallery in Jackson Hole, WY., do you remember detailed descriptions regarding equipment and technique displayed with each image? If I remember correctly, you must get on a computer he has installed in the gallery and go through some layers of menus to find some of this information. If you take the time to notice the people strolling through his gallery you likely will find that very few even carry a camera (outside of the point and shoot/camcorder crowd). And for those in the gallery that may be avid photographers, I would suspect that they arent the majority of his buyers. Those avid photographers will likely be, as most of us surely will, motivated by his fine work to get out in the field and capture their own images.

Im sorry for ranting on here. I feel that the issue in nature photography comes down to simply doing our best to portray the scene as beautifully and accurately as possible. We will likely employ different equipment and technique towards our goals, but in the end if the viewer finds the work pleasing, with or without the knowledge of how it was created (given the opportunity to know if they so desire), then the artist has succeeded.

-- Jake Primgaard (jake@bluegrass.net), January 10, 1999.

I think the technique is perfectly valid. IMHO Jake has a right to use the tools to re-create the scene he witnessed and not feel he is pulling a fast one. But I do feel strongly that we must protect the integrity of natural photography so that the value of special "real" shots is not lost in a sea of mass produced artificial assembled photographs. The only troubling thing about the digtal darkroom vs. the chemical darkroom, to me, is with the wonderful control comes even more responsiblity not too slip over the line and into manipulation. With chemical photography there is a limit to what you can do with the tools of filters and burning and dodging in digital photography there really is not.

-- Micheal F. Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), January 11, 1999.

The following thread also deals about this issue of combining images.

http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000KQC

-- Carlos Co (co@che.udel.edu), January 11, 1999.

Very striking image. Would make a great landscape matte for the next "Star Wars" movie.

I don't have any problem with the image Jake created. I only have a problem with his description, or lack thereof, in his initial post. The original post fails to mention that it was made from two separate pieces of film, combined in the darkroom (chemical or digital, makes no difference). "Accuracy" applies to documenting the image as much as it does to creating it.

Obviously this is a well-trodden subject that will be the consumer of nearly as much textual bandwidth as images, in the years to come. As individuals, we need to decide how we handle manipulating images.

-- Joe Boyd (boydjw@traveller.com), January 11, 1999.

After reading this thread I decided to try this technique myself using two images of Mount Rainier I shot this summer. By themselves both of the images were lacking details at the extremes but after 30 minutes of 'playing' I arrived at a satifactory combined image (which can be viewed here).

This leads me to two questions:

Is it obvious from the image that it is actually two combined images?

Are such images acceptable on this forum as to my mind they do violate the FoundView standard? (Post shutter manipulation involved cutting and pasting a chunk from another image - even if the other image is from the same scene at the same time just exposing for a different area). I think that call is down to Bob Atkins alone.

-- Darren Barnes (dazzyb@hotmail.com), January 13, 1999.