# Some old buildings for some C&C?



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Hey all!  So my wife snapped a couple pics yesterday and wanted some basic C&C on them.  Just curious as to what everyone thought, and always, what could have made them better.  






(My personal favorite





Oh, and by the way, these were all taken on the back of a motorcycle traveling 45-60mph while wearing a full face helmet and gloves.  She has her own motorcycle but rides on the back of mine because she can take pictures!  So obviously these are not 'ideal conditions' or anything like that, but I'm pretty impressed with what she comes up with snapping away on the back of a moving vehicle!

Not sure if the EXIF will transfer over (been having an issue with that in lightroom), but these are straight-out-of-camera, uncropped or otherwise.  f/8, 1/320 sec, ISO400

-John


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 5, 2012)

They're SOOC and to make them better you need to edit them. For one it's hard to hold a camera level when driving by at 45mph on the back of a bike.

Here's your favorite with the tone response and color adjusted:



Here's the original with an inset histogram -- the histogram tells you what's needed in terms of tone response.



Notice the histogram has two distinctly separate peaks that are separated by a substantial gap. That gap is the difference between earth and sky and the gap is too big. It indicates a classic lighting problem that the camera software can't process. When you shoot into an overcast sky that sky is your light source and your subject is then effectively backlit. If your camera exposure doesn't blow out the sky then your camera software will most certainly give you a flat and dark rendition of the foreground which you'll have to jump hoops to correct in post processing. So just don't do it in the first place -- see the light.

But since you did it, you've got to close that gap. If you take a photo like this then you commit to the post processing which you should avoid doing with a SOOC JPEG which means you should have a raw capture to work from. I did the best I could with your JPEG. Here's the histogram from my edited version of your photo:



Joe


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Hey Joe thanks!

Can you give me a little more info on how you did that tone edit?  Perhaps I can replicate the results in the RAW file?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 5, 2012)

Do you have the raw file? That changes everything. I'm out now for the afternoon -- back later this afternoon and I'll check back then.

Joe


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Do you have the raw file? That changes everything. I'm out now for the afternoon -- back later this afternoon and I'll check back then.
> 
> Joe



Yes, we always shoot RAW.  I suppose 'straight out of camera' may have been inaccurate, as I did convert it to JPEG and resize it in order to make it fit the requirements for the forum!

I really appreciate the help, and would love to learn more about what your doing!  I'll upload the raw file in a moment here.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 5, 2012)

John27 said:


> Oh, and by the way, these were all taken on the back of a motorcycle traveling 45-60mph while wearing a full face helmet and gloves.  She has her own motorcycle but rides on the back of mine because she can take pictures!  So obviously these are not 'ideal conditions' or anything like that, but I'm pretty impressed with what she comes up with snapping away on the back of a moving vehicle!



The images would greatly improve if you pull over set up a tripod take time to think about the shot compose and properly meter the exposure.


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Light Guru said:


> John27 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and by the way, these were all taken on the back of a motorcycle traveling 45-60mph while wearing a full face helmet and gloves.  She has her own motorcycle but rides on the back of mine because she can take pictures!  So obviously these are not 'ideal conditions' or anything like that, but I'm pretty impressed with what she comes up with snapping away on the back of a moving vehicle!
> ...



Well no doubt!  And we do a lot of that too.


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Alright, here is a link to the original RAW file;

https://www.onlinefilefolder.com/2siWv0K3dxlNcl

Again, these aren't going up in a gallery in new york, just snapshots.  But when I see a shot and think it looks good, I post it here, so you guys can tell me why it's NOT good, and that's how I learn!  I also appreciate the info on bringing the most out of these images in post processing.

We had the tripod on the bike but were enjoying the weather and the ride too much to pull off.  It definitely is an absolutely fun blending of the two hobbies though.  Riding our motorcycle to unique rural destinations, pulling off the side of the road and taking pictures!  I love these big farms out here, you can just see for miles with some of them!


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 5, 2012)

OK, with access to the raw file and the resulting 16 bit RGB conversion a much better processing job is possible. Here's my take on it then:



It's still a bunch of hoops to jump because of the lighting and I can't stress this enough: Don't take photos like this in the first place -- get the light right. If you are going to do this then you need to both 1. have the skills to do the processing and 2. make the time commitment -- this took me 30 minutes -- that's too much time. There is no automated software solution that will make a photo like this possible.

First in ACR/LR the photo has to be converted and given the difficult lighting the conversion has to be done with the additional Photoshop processing in mind. You can't get this one completely done in the raw converter. Here's my ACR/LR conversion values:



I made sure I had full tonal info to work with. I did the white balance in ACR and I converted to a 16 bit RGB file in the Pro-photo color space.

Then in Photoshop I got the hard work done. Bottom line is the sky and foreground have to be treated separately because of the backlight. Both need a contrast boost but the sky needs to be darker and the foreground needs to not get much darker as the contrast increases. This then required layer masks to apply separate adjustments sky/foreground. Here's my final processing then in Photoshop:



From the bottom up the first duplicate layer is blended with the background using a partial opacity Soft Light blend which raises contrast. The next dupe layer has a mask in place which is effectively applying a full opacity blend in Multiply mode to darken the sky. The next layer up is a dupe of the third for even more sky darkening (note mask again) -- this one is partial opacity. Finally a Levels adjust layer on top to finish it off.

Joe

P.S. For a fellow Missourian who asked, "show me."


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

Wow, that's incredibly informative and I really appreciate your time and skills.

I'm always looking to learn more.  When ever I see a shot that I or she takes and think "Hey that's pretty good", I like to post it on here to find the flaws.  We don't learn from success, we learn from mistakes.  I hope to hone my skills and 'increase' my standards through stuff like this.

So your suggestion, then, is to wait until sunset for a shot like this in the future?  Not to shoot middle of the day, overcast landscape shots?  I assume there is no practical way to properly expose a large subject like this in bright daylight?  (Short of some 50,000 watt strobes or something and metering for the sky? LOL)


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 5, 2012)

This thread is the $hite!  Applause for Ysarex.  :thumbup:


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> This thread is the $hite!  Applause for Ysarex.  :thumbup:



No kidding, this is what makes this forum great!


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 5, 2012)

I did an edit as well, but have to admit I didn't spend more than 7 or 8 minutes on the edit. My biggest change was going to a pano type 16:9 crop, resetting the black and white points and doing a bit of curves and levels adjustments.


----------



## matthewo (Dec 5, 2012)

Why why why


----------



## John27 (Dec 5, 2012)

matthewo said:


> Why why why



Why why why what?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

John27 said:


> Wow, that's incredibly informative and I really appreciate your time and skills.
> 
> I'm always looking to learn more.  When ever I see a shot that I or she takes and think "Hey that's pretty good", I like to post it on here to find the flaws.  We don't learn from success, we learn from mistakes.  I hope to hone my skills and 'increase' my standards through stuff like this.
> 
> So your suggestion, then, is to wait until sunset for a shot like this in the future?  Not to shoot middle of the day, overcast landscape shots?



It's the overcast landscape with the sky in the shot -- that's an instant default to backlight. If you do that and you aren't consciously thinking about why and how you're taking this backlit photo and how you plan to deal with it, then you're crashing and burning.



John27 said:


> I assume there is no practical way to properly expose a large subject like this in bright daylight?  (Short of some 50,000 watt strobes or something and metering for the sky? LOL)



Exactly! 50,000 watt seconds sounds right -- time is short -- see the light and don't waste time. There's always something to photograph, so do what works and don't waste time on what doesn't. Photos like this can sometimes be worth the effort but it's all about you being in control from start to finish. This photo wasn't worth the effort if you (or Ashley) didn't recognize the lighting condition up front, consciously think about it and then make the decision that this was worth the post processing work. I suspect that didn't happen during a 45mph drive by -- fair enough, you can call it a happy accident, but most accidents aren't happy. If you can't see it and make the call before you trip the shutter then you're out-of-control. Being in control is a much more satisfying place.

I scream this at my students all semester long: The difference between an amateur and a professional photographer can be summed up in one sentence: The amateur looks through the camera and sees the subject, while the pro looks through the camera and sees how the subject is lit -- see the light!

Take Care,
Joe

P.S. Where abouts are you in MO, I'm in St. Louis.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> This thread is the $hite!  Applause for Ysarex.  :thumbup:



I am indeed flattered and appreciative -- sincere thanks.

Joe


----------



## John27 (Dec 6, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> John27 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's incredibly informative and I really appreciate your time and skills.
> ...



Down I-44 in St.Clair, MO.  Where do you teach?

I'm going to take that advice to heart.  It makes a lot of sense.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

In most cases you can shoot a digital Zone and put the light wherever you want it, regardless of current conditions. This is ala Ansel Adams but somewhat different in how you place the shadows and highlights. Short of that, you can always shoot multiple brackets and use a little bit of each with some good mask work. I shoot when I see the shot I want and don't always let the light control me; I control it though in heavy defense of your statement, it always about the light and I challenged my charges with the same message year after year; sometimes I think the message got through. ;>)


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

John27 said:


> Down I-44 in St.Clair, MO.  Where do you teach?



I retired 3 years ago but I like to teach part-time one or two classes. I float around between different institutions as I pretty much know everybody. I'm just now finishing up a semester a little south of you at Jeffco.

Joe


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> John27 said:
> 
> 
> > Down I-44 in St.Clair, MO.  Where do you teach?
> ...



I assume you were a college professor? I taught some comunity college classes but my primary tenure was at the high school level in 35mm B&W, digital and alternative processes - mostly salt, cyanotype, ziatype and platinum/palladium.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:


> In most cases you can shoot a digital Zone and put the light wherever you want it, regardless of current conditions. This is ala Ansel Adams but somewhat different in how you place the shadows and highlights. Short of that, you can always shoot multiple brackets and use a little bit of each with some good mask work. I shoot when I see the shot I want and don't always let the light control me; I control it though in heavy defense of your statement, it always about the light and I challenged my charges with the same message year after year; sometimes I think the message got through. ;>)



Changing exposure doesn't control the light, it changes exposure. You control the light by physically changing it; put a bigger softbox on the main or add strobe fill to an outdoor portrait or scrim the hair light, etc. Difficult or adverse lighting doesn't become less difficult when you alter the exposure, and yes there's multiple ways to address it but they all require skill and a time commitment in post processing. And this is critical: *No matter how skilled you are in jumping post processing hoops, the final result you produce will be inferior to what you would have gotten if you had indeed controlled the light and got the light right to begin with.*

You mention multiple exposures; that's a tripod, tripods are work. You mention masking; that's post processing work and skill. It's fine to do that. My point is it's not fine to take a photo that will require that and not know in advance what you're setting yourself up for before tripping the shutter.

The Zone System is a good analogy, taking this back to film days. The Zone System was a methodology of darkroom hoop jumping developed to help deal with natural light conditions where you couldn't get the light right but were still willing to take the photo and then do all the extra processing work. After years of practice people would lose sight of why they were using the Zone System in the first place. You used it when you couldn't control the lighting. It never applied to shooting in a studio for the simple reason that in the studio you could control the light. It never applied to shooting chromes in natural light where your only option was good lighting. And again this is critical: *The final result produced by the Zone System photographer was never as good as the photo that would have resulted from getting the light right in the first place.
*
So it's about a priority hierarchy and it's critical to never lose sight of that priority ranking:
1st priority: See the light and get it right.
2nd priority: If the lighting isn't right, change it.
3rd priority: If you can't change it, can you wait for it? Is it worth it?
4th priority: Can you deal with it in post? Is it worth it?

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > John27 said:
> ...



Yes, 29 years in the classroom -- started with film and finishing with digital.

Joe


----------



## John27 (Dec 6, 2012)

My wife did her first two years at Jeffco, Joe.  She lived more out that way.

The "see the light" comment is really a light bulb for a noob like me, it's one of those "Wow that's incredible plain and simple... but... I never thought of it!" type things!

There's something lost having learned on digital.  We both strive to get it right the first time, but, it's not a big deal if we don't.  My grandpa shot film SLR for decades and just got his first digital a year ago.  It's amazing to watch him eyeball a shot and nail it.  Oh, and he only found out his camera had a meter a couple weeks ago.  (He actually got really excited and called me! lol!) Seeing the light makes a lot of sense.  I'm not a professional photographer nor do I have a desire to be.  But I DO want to make my shots better.  One of the neat things about photography isn't capturing things exactly as they look, it's capturing things as best they possibly can look!  My iPhone can take a picture and relay the message, of a cool run-down barn with big trees growing around it.  But what it can't do is capture all of the color and drama of the scene, and the details of the rust, etc.

Joe I'm gonna have to dig through some of your old threads, I've learned a lot from this little thread.  I've found there are two kinds of people on TPF.  There are the pretentious ones who just hop on to tell you how good their farts smell and offer nothing for new folks like us to get better (Granted, there are some newbies who get on here who ALSO think their farts don't stink and won't even begin to accept the criticism or advice from others).  But then there are guys like you who jump in a thread and when it's all said in done, the OP walks away with more knowledge than when they started.  I have a feeling it's the latter crowd who probably understand photography better as well.

So for that, thanks!

-John


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 6, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> ceeboy14 said:
> 
> 
> > In most cases you can shoot a digital Zone and put the light wherever you want it, regardless of current conditions. This is ala Ansel Adams but somewhat different in how you place the shadows and highlights. Short of that, you can always shoot multiple brackets and use a little bit of each with some good mask work. I shoot when I see the shot I want and don't always let the light control me; I control it though in heavy defense of your statement, it always about the light and I challenged my charges with the same message year after year; sometimes I think the message got through. ;>)
> ...



Don't tell Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Al Weber or a whole lot of other folks the Zone system shots aren't as good as getting the light right in the first place...Adams can't argue but Al Weber would challenge that statement all day long and there aren't too many old style film photographers out there better than him. If everybody waited for "ideal" light conditions, in most cases it would be a long wait and many very fine shots would have never made it to the darkroom. Good example is "Moonrise Over Hernandez." Adams had about a ten minute window to see the image in his head, set up the camera and make the shot. He exposed for the shadows and processed for the light exactly where he wanted it placed. Make that shot and I'll quit my argument. Not arguing that a good wait is worth the shot, only that if you can't wait you can still get the shot.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Dec 6, 2012)

I have removed my comments


----------



## John27 (Dec 6, 2012)

Ysarex can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his point had to do with work/reward.  Lots of photographers have broken lots of rules and created awe-inspiring images.  However, I am not Ansel Adams.  I am not a master of these darkroom techniques.   Nor am I a master of photoshop.  In the example of the thread, less work, and a greater quality image could have been had, if I had taken the shot at a more opportune time.  Barring that, I got a shot I'm pretty happy with thanks to Ysarex doing some post-processing that I've been working to replicate.  But in the end, it's a pretty 'typical' mundane shot.  I can go back and shoot it anytime.  If I was climbing mount everest and made it to the top in bright daylight and was running low on oxygen and had to make it down the other side, I'd take the shot and do what I could in post.  That would be worth it.  But, I think Ysarex is right, it's probably not worth his time nor mine to have spent so much time post-processing an image like that.  (Other than the fact that it's a learning opportunity).

I think even Ansel Adams would wait for the most opportune shot and have as great of an image on the raw film as he could, so that less work would need to be done in post.  (Er, um, the darkroom).

As far as the 'never as good', well, there are always exceptions I'm sure.  The bumblebee cannot fly.  That is a factual statement based on what science we understand about flying.  But the bumblebee flies anyway.  That does not mean that we should expect the next creature that has too much mass and too little wingspace to be able to fly.  I think his statement follows the same lines, perhaps Ansel Adams or other MASTERS of the craft could create breathtaking shots while breaking all the rules.  But John here sure as heck cannot.

Maybe I'm way off base but that's what I gathered from what he said.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 6, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ceeboy14 said:
> ...



I'd be happy to tell them and happy to show them, but I'm sure that wouldn't be necessary as I'm confident they all know it. The Zone System is a methodology that allows you to adjust the gamma response of a b&w negative to better fit the lighting contrast of a scene when the lighting contrast of that scene is a poor match to the ideal response curve of the film. Films do have an ideal response curve (achieved with ZS development N) that you should target by getting the light right. If you can match the lighting contrast to the film response and further match that to the paper response you get the best possible result. And, yes, that's a limiting factor in practice. You'd be forced to photograph like someone with their camera loaded with Kodachrome. You could never Zone System Kodachrome but lots of people shot it and took lots of great photos.

It's fine to extend our capabilities. I don't object to the Zone System, quite the contrary I trained a lot of students to use it to advantage. It's advantage is that it extends our ability in situations where the lighting contrast is less than ideal -- that's a good thing. But it does no good when it's not needed *and what it doesn't do is produce results that are superior to the result you get when the light is right.* I also trained a lot of students to work using studio lights where the Zone System had no place because the order of priority is to get the light right and in the studio you can do that. The Zone System is a lot of work just as today sophisticated post processing with masking and filters is a lot of work. Not everybody has or wants to develop those skills or commit that effort.

I'm glad there are people that do. I've learned to do that so I'm talking from the inside looking out.

As I said there's a priority order for getting the best results. Keeping that priority order straight is a real good idea. I didn't say there was only one option and we should do only that. You step down the priority list as circumstances force you do to so. What you don't do is jump straight to priority 4 if priority 2 was an available option.

Joe


----------

