Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

RAW processing - mountain photos

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
madhobbit.geo@yahoo.com - 27 Aug 2006 05:55 GMT
Hi all,

I've just returned from a four-day trip to the Rockies (Jasper to Banff
and back). I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it, and of course my
camera came along. Most of the pictures I got are your typical
postcard/calendar photos of "a mountain, a lake, and some trees".

Here's the problem. I'm looking at the RAW files, and I'm having
trouble getting them to look right (where "right" is defined as "the
way I remember the scene"). I've been fiddling around (I don't have a
whole lot of expertise with RAW, and I've never done this sort of
scenery before), and I'm having a serious problem with greens that I
can't resolve.

First, the colour of the water is entirely wrong. Rivers and lakes
formed from glacial meltwater have a beautiful deep green colour, but
in most of my photos straight off the camera, the water is a fairly
ordinary brown/grey - the green/turquoise seems to have vanished. I'm
having exactly the opposite issue with foliage: trees and moss appear
(to my eye) to be extremely - almost comically - oversaturated.

I'm having problems with detail missing from the sky as well, but that
seems to be a simple dynamic range issue, and I can deal with it.

So, I'm trying to work with the photos so that they look "real" - I
want them to represent the scene as I saw/remember it. In general,
increasing the contrast and saturation, and warming the colours a bit,
seems to do a good job of getting the rock and mountains to look right,
but exacerbates the problem with the foliage, and doesn't seem to do a
whole lot for the water. Has anyone dealt with this sort of problem
before?

The problems aren't endemic - some of the shots look just fine, and
others exhibit some of the problems but not others. But the same issues
are coming up very frequently, and I'm not sure what to do about them.

The shooting conditions were: Rebel 300D with 18-55 kit lens, no
filters. All shots were RAW, ISO 100-200, with manual exposure, and I
was careful that highlights were not blown out (especially the sky).
The lighting was all natural light, generally with at least some cloud
cover or fog (that is, the sun was normally partially or completely
obscured).

None of the pictures are anything special from a critical perspective,
but they're my vacation pictures, and I want them to look as good as
possible. I can post some samples (CRW or JPG) later if anyone's
interested - I'm just tossing out this post before going to bed.

Any advice is appreciated!

Thanks,
- Darryl
Randall Ainsworth - 27 Aug 2006 06:22 GMT
> First, the colour of the water is entirely wrong. Rivers and lakes
> formed from glacial meltwater have a beautiful deep green colour, but
> in most of my photos straight off the camera, the water is a fairly
> ordinary brown/grey - the green/turquoise seems to have vanished. I'm
> having exactly the opposite issue with foliage: trees and moss appear
> (to my eye) to be extremely - almost comically - oversaturated.

When I pull the RAW images from my 10D into PhotoShop, they look flat
and somewhat washed out. Generally, all I need to do is move the shadow
slider up to about 30, sharpen, and save. But they'll look pretty
crappy when you first open them.
Alan Browne - 27 Aug 2006 16:50 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> scenery before), and I'm having a serious problem with greens that I
> can't resolve.

In the raw import, make sure the color temp is about 5000 - 5000K and
tint=0, regardless of the time of day the images were shot.

Make sure the RAW import self gen'd "exposure" is at the right setting.

Then adjust brightness, shaddow and contrast.  Turn on the RAW import
"shaddow" and "highlights" indicators to help with the adjustments.
Sometimes you will just have to let the shaddows go to dead black and
accept some 'burned' highlights.

Cheers,
Alan

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

madhobbit.geo@yahoo.com - 27 Aug 2006 20:43 GMT
> In the raw import, make sure the color temp is about 5000 - 5000K and
> tint=0, regardless of the time of day the images were shot.

The tint has turned out to be the biggest problem in most of the images
that were giving me trouble - in general, the tint was too magenta, and
the colour temperature was too high. Lowering the colour temperature
and shifting the tint towards zero (or in some cases over to the green
side) has made a huge difference, especially in the colour of the
water.

Thanks!

- Darryl
Roger - 11 Sep 2006 02:42 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:43:54 -0700, madhobbit.geo wrote:

>> In the raw import, make sure the color temp is about 5000 - 5000K and
>> tint=0, regardless of the time of day the images were shot.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> - Darryl
Interesting, because I have just returned from a trip to that same area.
I had just purchased an EF-S 17-85 IS USM lens days before and was dying
to try it out. Unfortunately I did not have a circ filter for it and many
of my sky shots are washed out.
I did notice I had big problems with contrast (snow covered peaks
overexposed, shadows underexposed) and some of my sky shots on a clear day
seem far too blue. Everything was shot raw and did very little if any
processing. Check: http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/. Can we have a
look at yours?
madhobbit.geo@yahoo.com - 11 Sep 2006 22:13 GMT
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:43:54 -0700, madhobbit.geo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> processing. Check: http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/. Can we have a
> look at yours?

Sure; I'll try to get them up somewhere reasonable; right now they're
hosted on my home cable connection, and my ISP takes a dim view of
that. I suspect that if I dropped that URL in this group, the resulting
bandwidth spike would cause them to raise an eyebrow...

I should have them up somewhere in a day or two though, and I'll take a
look at yours in the meantime. I've had a quick glance, but not enough
to make any meaningful comments (other than the nitpicky one that it's
Johnston Canyon, not Johnson Canyon)

- Darryl
madhobbit.geo@yahoo.com - 12 Sep 2006 01:45 GMT
> > Check: http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/. Can we have a
> > look at yours?
>
> I should have them up somewhere in a day or two though

Done: http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k106/dshpak/Mountains/

Not the prettiest album ever, but quick and easy and free.

> and I'll take a look at yours in the meantime.

These are just eerie to look at, since I was in many of the same
places, with the same sort of weather (cloudy, foggy). They look sort
of like you found a memory card of mine that I had forgotten about :-)

I'd have to decree "Fog breaking up"
(http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/image/66430716) as my favourite.
Gorgeous golden light, and a real sense of presence; I almost expect to
see the fog moving and light changing as I watch. "Early fog"
(http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/image/66430718) is also notable
(though there are a -lot- of specks on that photo visible in the
clouds. Sensor dust, perhaps? Easy enough to clone out, if you plan on
doing anything with the photo; I find them quite distracting as they
are now).

A lot of the pictures
(http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/image/66430728 for instance) are
quite adequate pictures of mountains; unfortunately, I'm pretty
satiated on pictures of mountains right now :-) I was going through my
photos, and thinking "Yep, that's a mountain all right. Hey, there's
another mountain. Looks a lot like the last one."

I think Banff Springs Hotel
(http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/image/66430712/large) has
potential, if you can recover the blown highlights in the river. I also
really like Too Early
(http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/image/66430705), but the horizon
needs straightening :-)

I have to admit that I'm pleased to see some technical problems (like
overexposed sky) in your pictures. No, I'm not being evil; it's just
that I had a lot of the same problems in mine, and it's always nice to
see that it was, in fact, a difficult photo to take. I often had to
take three or four exposures to avoid blowing the highlights, and then
I had to do a -lot- of fiddling to my RAWs before I was pleased with
them.

Also, I'll have to try to get out to Lake Moraine if I'm ever in the
area again; we didn't go there, but judging by your pictures, it was
probably woth a visit.

- Darryl
Roger - 12 Sep 2006 03:18 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:45:10 -0700, madhobbit.geo wrote:

>> > Check: http://www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger/. Can we have a
>> > look at yours?
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> - Darryl

Thanks for the critique.
Yes, I certainly do recognize a lot of your shots. You don't seem to have
had the contrast problems I had, though it's hard to say without a
side-by-side at the same time comparison.
Next time make a point of getting to Moraine Lake. It's worth the side
trip.
Paul Furman - 12 Sep 2006 03:56 GMT
More of that scenery from a P&S oly:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Overseas/2001-05-28-canada>

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:45:10 -0700, madhobbit.geo wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> Next time make a point of getting to Moraine Lake. It's worth the side
> trip.

Signature

Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

Ken Ellis - 30 Aug 2006 00:45 GMT
I usually fiddle with the white balance and get it close. Then i will
adjust the exposure comp. I will then probably adjust the contrast
and saturation, and perhaps tweek the color a touch...all in canons
eos viewer util.

On my 20D, I find i am often adjusting the white balance profile.
It resonates for me.  I also can get more detail by reducing the
contrast in conjunction with this.

Then I will judge the darks and the light, speculars..etc; and then if
i feel it needs it, i will go back to the exposure comp...and save a
coupe of versions (eg..+ and -) IN OTHER WORDS A TOO LIGHT VERS. AND A
TOO DARK ONE.

I will save these to 16bit tiff and set about to manipulate them
in photoshop as high bit. Then it's off to 8bit and a composite.
I gotta start using the blend if function.

Anyway.  In raw:
White balance
Exposure compensation
Contrast and Color
save to high bit (i have ps 7)

Btw...i would cry big tears if i had no polarizer out in big sky.

a simple hobyist
cheers
ken
Paul Furman - 30 Aug 2006 01:19 GMT
> I usually fiddle with the white balance and get it close. Then i will
> adjust the exposure comp. I will then probably adjust the contrast
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> coupe of versions (eg..+ and -) IN OTHER WORDS A TOO LIGHT VERS. AND A
> TOO DARK ONE.

Yep, then a really big soft edged eraser brush can simulate a graduated
neutral density filter in a jiff without trying to get fussy about
detailed masking of the two versions.

> I will save these to 16bit tiff and set about to manipulate them
> in photoshop as high bit. Then it's off to 8bit and a composite.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> cheers
> ken

Signature

Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

Ken Ellis - 30 Aug 2006 23:05 GMT
>>shnip<...and save a
>> coupe of versions (eg..+ and -) IN OTHER WORDS A TOO LIGHT VERS. AND A
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>neutral density filter in a jiff without trying to get fussy about
>detailed masking of the two versions.

...in for a penny.... used to do that, but have learned the hard way
to use a masking layer and a soft brush insyead of a hard erase. Then
i can save the mask with the file and re-edit later. Before i had PS
though - used an eraser.

Also..I would add, and this refers to another thread too - re: someone
had a bunch of cokins... If the detail aint there, it's a pain to
remake it; whereas a cokin graduated nd will let you balance the
exposure across view  so one has something to work with; and
don't need composite.

I find it remarkable that i must mismatch white balance - per sae, to
obtain the same "look" from when i shot it. I believe setting the
camera "hot" may have something to do with it (in the 1D emulation eg
param 1).

cheers
Ken
Paul Mitchum - 31 Aug 2006 02:40 GMT
[..]
> > Then I will judge the darks and the light, speculars..etc; and then if i
> > feel it needs it, i will go back to the exposure comp...and save a coupe
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> neutral density filter in a jiff without trying to get fussy about
> detailed masking of the two versions.

Masking layer and a gradient works much better for simulating a grad ND.
Then you can alter the opacity of the top layer, too.
Robert Nabors - 07 Sep 2006 05:44 GMT
I process photos very little. The more processing one does the  the more the
photo de grades. Get it right with the camerta or throw it out.

http://www2.hagenhosting.com/~naborswe/Libya/Libyaindex.html

Bob

> [..]
>> > Then I will judge the darks and the light, speculars..etc; and then if
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Masking layer and a gradient works much better for simulating a grad ND.
> Then you can alter the opacity of the top layer, too.
John McWilliams - 07 Sep 2006 06:42 GMT
> I process photos very little.

That's fine; no one sensible is saying that'd be a bad thing.

The more processing one does the  the more the
> photo de grades.

Not with the right software and techniques.

Get it right with the camerta or throw it out.

That may work for you, but there's nary a photo that's a good as it can
be without a touch of color balance, or temperature adjustment, or tiny
crop or straightening.

--

John McWilliams
Paul Furman - 07 Sep 2006 16:52 GMT
>> I process photos very little.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> be without a touch of color balance, or temperature adjustment, or tiny
> crop or straightening.

Seems I'm often up against scenes with too much contrast; that has
always been a given with photography but now, digital allows easier
better adjustment than burning & dodging and while neutral density
filters (or polarizers) are ideal, I work in the field, on the go so I
find these methods useful.

Signature

Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.