I found time to spend several hours at the Monet exhibit at the Denver Art Museum last week. Other than the water lily room, my favorites were the painting depicting fog. Just fascinating to look at the brush strokes and realize that he was painting various colors into the fog.
So, I started thinking about fog and how it is portrayed in photographs. Did some playing around with Topaz but just Topaz wasn’t getting me anywhere. So, on this one, I took a very foggy gray picture and dehazed it pretty dramatically then combined the that copy with the original through masks where I could paint the fog in where I wanted it. There was a little pink in the photo, I emphasized that and painted some more in here and there. I did end up using a touch of Topaz Impression that I selectively painted in and out.
Any commentary is fair game. This might not be the best picture composition wise but it reminded me of some of the subjects Monet used (he definitely did not always obey compositional rules!) I do wonder about the little irregularities in the water. I took some of those out but left them in slightly. Are what are left distracting??
(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.
You may only download this image to demonstrate post-processing techniques.
Kathy, what a great image. The effort you put into the image paid off. In viewing your image my eye keeps going to the dark black spot in the tree reflection. If it was my image, I would remove it. Thanks for sharing.
I’m looking forward to the Denver Monet exhibit. Thanks for sharing the details on your fog processing approach. I feel you achieved your objective very well.
Ralph
Thank you . Can you give me the kind of location of the black spot. I can’t find it. Could be that I have looked at this so much that my eyes just refuse to see it.
Igor. Thank you! That right bank is the reason I chose this picture! I was struck when looking at Monet’s works that sometimes there would be things such as an inconsequential object in a place like that right bank. Whether he did it for balance or off set or some other reason I don’t know. I did not take as many pics to study as I should have but here is one with a shadow right at the bottom of the frame. Another example of how he violated rules.
Bill. Allow plenty of time! The exhibit contains numerous private collection pieces that you might not see any place else. The audio tour was a bit of a diasapointment as it did not have many compositional discussions but I suppose most people would not be looking for that.
Also notice how he chopped off the top of the tree. We get worked up about that. But perhaps the frame shadows is hiding some of the picture. It’s kind of unusual to have exhibit lights set up to cast shadows like that.
Igor, I frequently run into this issue of how much tree to include in a scene like this. Earlier in my photographic days, I would try to avoid clipping trees at all costs, but often came away un-satisified with how much negative space it left, or how it affected the ratio of sky to land. So over time I’m comfortable with clipping trees like in this painting. But I think I would have told Monet to make the crop look a little more deliberate looking
Kathy, I too am really happy to see that you included the bit of land in the LRC. I think it makes the composition more balanced and sophisticated, rather than just ending up with a static reflection-only image. I also like your processing to enhance the fog, it looks both natural and very pleasing, great work on the processing of this.
Thanks Ed. This experience has reminded me that I need to study other forms of art more often! Im not sure I would not have just taken that inconsequential LRC bit out usually if I had worked on this before seeing the Monet exhibit.
I think inclusion of the LRC prevents the image from being too static looking (and having too negative space IMO) Here is what that might have looked like, I think your presentation is much superior to this straw man version.
If you were going to go the route of not including the LRC, I would suggest taking a different approach to this scene, which to me is less static than the straw man version.
Outstanding work. Gorgeous image. More and more I’m coming around to presenting what we “saw” and “felt”, rather than just recording what was “there.” You’ve done a masterful job with this.
Any anomalies in the water are merely there for us photog’s to nitpick… otherwise, who would notice or care?
