I’m finding myself altering my images more and more through post processing. Don’t know if that’s good or bad. Part of the reason is that raw files from a D810 never seem to look as good as reality, or even what appears on the LCD screen behind the camera. But much of it is due to interpretation (artifying an image).
This one is an exception. A fairly straightforward shot I decided to depict it as it was and let the subject carry the image. I thought these rocks looked like a lions paw and was attracted to them. I worked in a background to add some interest. This is yet another image from the Alabama Hills morning shoot.
D810, Tamron 24-70 lens
Let me know what you think.
1 Like
Hi Igor,
The cluster of rocks at the bottom looks like a giant cat’s paw. Lots of nice textures and I like the transition from warm to cool as you move from foreground to background. Lots of things to see in this image and I like it as presented. Awesome!..Jim
I have found that the D810 and the D850 raw files are very, very flat looking. They have a lot of data, but need to be worked to get up to what you saw in the field, much less beyond it. My personal philosophy is that photography is art and I am not trying to duplicate exactly what I saw in the field, but I do try to keep any interpretation looking realistic as much as I can. But that is me and everyone has their own way of doing things.
In this one, I like the composition, but I find myself wanting more contrast and pop.
@Paul_Breitkreuz, I noticed that you gave a ‘like’ to this image. That made me think about shooting with film as you do. Am I correct in understanding that film images that are later scanned into digital files have less flexibility in post processing than images shot in digital? That scanners aren’t as capable of getting as much information from film as the digital camera directly from the subject? I ask this because I notice that you and Ian do very little photoshop post processing.
This certainly works as a lovely documentary photo. There is a nice rhythm to the composition, from the way the rocks gradually decrease in size, leading to the far mountains.
My criterion for too much post-processing is only if it has become too hard to do and it is easier to just re-shoot it again.
For this image, it seems everything looks appropriate for the light condition of the day. I think anything more will start to look a bit more artificial? Two things to nit:
- Depth of field. Even if not all the way to the mountain, I am wishing for a sharper midground.
- That rock on the upper right somewhat bothers me. An unexpected visual weight somehow.
But yeah, it does look like a paw. Great seeing here, Igor.
That’s interesting. I actually worked pretty hard to get that rock in. My initial composition idea was to shoot this from a bit to the right but then decided I needed something more than a field of rocks leading to the horizon. But I do see your point. It does look a bit awkward. Not prominent enough to be interesting and not small enough to fall unnoticed.
@Igor_Doncov @Harley_Goldman @Lon_Overacker
Hi Igor, I’ve included both Harley & Lon in on this message here. Primarily as both of them have worked both sides of the fence with regard to film vs digital. Others like Preston, Ian, and Eva would also have some solid input too. As I’ve never done any serious digital work beyond very small files for eBay sales or snap shots with an iPhone I’d be the weakest link on the best approach.
Your comment with regard to “do very little photoshop post processing”, is extremely debatable. In some cases it depends upon the film being used. ALL films both positives and negatives have leaning color tendencies. Velvia (red / magenta) Provia ( cyan / blue) Astia (yellow / green). Any and all of those IMO require a fair amount of post processing to present a less over the top color lean. Additionally, scanning can also have certain color shifts. Not sure about negative films but positives that I use all still require a good amount of post processing tweaking.
Anyway, I’ve just found postive films work best for “my style” of photographic work. But I can truthfully say it is not for the faint at heart when you throw in all the costs associated with film prices, E-6 or C-41 processing and S&H to and from…and well you get the idea… 
1 Like
Igor, your image gives me an uncomfortable feeling. And that is I think because of the rocks but also the color in it.And that is good ! Maybe an image with only the rocks, without any sky should make a still more interesting image. This is a spot with a lot of image possibilities . IMHO.
I love the foreground rocks and can see why you were drawn to them. The Alabama hills can be quite chaotic with all of the “possibilities” as there are an endless size and color variation of rocks here. To me there is tension with the midground rock and the Sierra behind it. The clouds also draw the eye toward the midground rock as they are pointing right at it. Not necessarily a bad thing though. I think you have enough foreground interest to eliminate the midground rock completely as they are slightly different color and texture than the rocks in the midground and lead the eye right through. You could even make a case of cropping it just past square but not sure how that would look. I do like the processing on this though as it shows this scene in a very realistic look to me and I think that’s what you were shooting for with this image.
Igor, I like the composition, but I feel it needs more processing. The mid ground and sky are brighter than the FG focal point, and that pulls my eyes away from the FG rocks. I downloaded and played with it a little and burned the BG a bit and I hope it helped.
Original
Revised
Thank you Bill. I appreciate that. I’ll have to see it on a bigger screen.
Well, I guess being called out by name, I should respond… 
Having only been shooting with a dslr now for 5 years, I would whole-heartedly agree that there is less flexibility working with scanned digital film. For starters… you can’t pick and choose your white balance from a raw file, right? The premise back in the day… or should I say current day with the likes of @Paul_Breitkreuz and @Ian_Cameron in working with film - was to get the exposure right, in camera. IMHO, if you have a properly exposed transparency and quality scan… post processing isn’t really any more than what we deal with after sending a RAW image thru ACR - into LR or PS. You have a quality image to work with. After that, all processes, techniques, etc. apply whether the image was from scanned film or a RAW digital file. You must start with a quality “RAW” image. (Funny, I used to call my scanned TIF 4x5 images as my “RAW” film images.
So Igor, no, you can’t get any extra information from a scanned film file - and most often LESS pixel information (blocked shadows… blown highlights, etc.) - but if you’re starting with a quality scan… then the tables are level, IMHO.
Not sure if I’m on topic, but my .02. Oh, and if you think going back to film will offer some advantage… I’d think hard on that.
Lon
Igor,
Lost sight to what I was replying to in previous post - so thought I would respond to your image.
Composition is excellent - classic near-far composition that is beautifully seen and presented. Similar to your previous post, the inclusion of the background, and bg mountain range provide locational context, which make this a great image documenting or characterizing a region. This works beautifully in that regard. this also tells a great nature story in the study of the rocks and geology.
I have no nitpicks at all regarding the composition - beautifully crafted. Processing wise, I think the “haze” from the long distant atmosphere to the far mountain range could be mitigated. I really, really like @Bill_Chambers rendition. That pretty much takes care of anything I may have proposed. Subtle, but elevating changes.
Another fine take-away from the Alabama Hills.
Lon
