Opinion: photo colors

[JoshK]

What picture's color profile better represents morning sunlight on peaks. Better yet, which do you like better?

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/plab/showphoto.php?photo=4546&size=big&password=&sort=1&cat=503

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/plab/showphoto.php?photo=4545&size=big&password=&sort=1&cat=503

[cracked]

#1

[Jake]

Top one looks better. Dunno if its more accurate though.

[Greg_W]

#1

ditto

[Gripped]

I think #2 is more striking.

 

It is much more crisp.

[chirp]

Im kinda going with #2 regarding the crispness/freshness factor (there may be the issue of blanching in the lower image but it may be merely my video card/monitor combo).

The top image might be more true assuming there was alot of forest fire smoke in the atmosphere. Tough call tho as I am going from gut, the true psp afficianados will have more tech explanations, color correction scripts, formulas, algorithmic proposterations, and perhaps...just perhaps...something that will confound us all.

[Thrashador]

#1. #2's highlights are blown out. At least on my monitor.

[Gary_Yngve]

I like the red hues in #1.

[snugtop]

#1

[MysticNacho]

#2.

 

#1 is trying its very best to be a sunset picture, but there's not a red or orange hue to be seen. It looks almost brown, therfore I'll go with #2 based on the color scheme.

 

Taken with a polarizer?

Edited April 26, 2004 by MysticNacho

[Ryan]

#1

[AllYouCanEat]

My scanner makes many of my photos look pink (minolta sucks ), so I'd have to say I like the second one better. It seems more realistic.

[Pandora]

#2. I definitely agree that it's more crisp and fresh. Looks more like winter

[Bug]

#2 The blue in the sky and the crispness are better.

[lummox]

2. that tide sure works good.

[willstrickland]

Ever see a series of shots of the same subject taken throughout a day from dawn to dusk? They put these in lots of photography instructional type books, interesting how the light changes.

 

Top one looks like shortly after sunrise maybe 30 minutes after, bottom looks like about one to two hours after the top one. I prefer the top one.

[MysticNacho]

Look at the shadows on the hills... looks like the photos taken at the same time of day, just doctered.

[JoshK]

Thanks for all the feedback. Yes, it is the same picture only using different color correction. The camera takes pictures in a raw format meaning no color balancing is done whatsoever at the time the photo is taken. This allows the processing to happen after the photo has been downloaded to the computer.

 

Picture #1 has only had the contrast and brightness tweaked.

 

Picture #2 has had an automatic "levels" adjustment run on it which "automatically balances light and dark across the color channels"

 

I'm trying to figure out how to get the more dynamic impact of picture #2 combined with the more true lighting (the slight orange was present when the picture was taken) in picture #1.

 

As for filters, none were used for this picture. I had a polarizer with me, but my guess is it would have made the lens too slow since there was already a fairly slow shutter speed required.

 

-josh

[klar404]

Josh, are you running photoshop cs? If you are try using the adjustment shadow/highlight. I find it is a little less crude than using the automatic adjustment deally bobs. And remember, you can always use the fade adjustment to dial in what you want. Now that I have proven I am a nerd, here is your photo that I took into ps.Not that I know what the hell I'm doing.

[Blake]

is that Cache Col in the foreground?

 

I'd go with #2, it looks more fresh and crisp.

[skyclimb]

#2. It removes that smoggy look in the sky that occurs in #1. It also shows the ridges mores clearly.

[JoshK]

I think cache col is just to the left, but I admit I'm not sure from that angle. I remember it being a very flat col, but who knows. Formidable just looks awesome from that angle!

[ashw_justin]

As for filters, none were used for this picture. I had a polarizer with me, but my guess is it would have made the lens too slow since there was already a fairly slow shutter speed required.

 

-josh

 

I have this trick where I balance my dig on my ghetto ski pole and set it on a 10-second capture delay, that way I can take longer exposures because my hands don't shake the camera. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by making the lens slow(?) I would go with the natural color, and try using a pol filter, and a narrow aperture with a long exposure. Hey where's skykilo his photos always come out good!

Edited April 27, 2004 by ashw_justin

[JoshK]

A polarizing filter knocks you down 2 stops, requiring a longer exposure. You are right, if I had a tripod, or had done something similar to what you mention, I probably still could have got the picture I wanted with a filter on.

[ashw_justin]

As for filters, none were used for this picture. I had a polarizer with me, but my guess is it would have made the lens too slow since there was already a fairly slow shutter speed required.

 

-josh

 

I have this trick where I balance my dig on my ghetto ski pole and set it on a 10-second capture delay, that way I can take longer exposures because my hands don't shake the camera. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by making the lens slow(?) I would go with the natural color, and try using a pol filter, and a narrow aperture with a long exposure. Hey where's skykilo his photos always come out good!

 

That's kind of what I did in this photo, except the tripod was a rock.

 

 

Course it came out a little dark though.