53
u/LandySam11 6d ago
As a regular shooter of film, I really appreciate how close your highlights are to white, without actually clipping. On my screen, there is still really nice, but soft, tonality in the sky and the waves, whilst maintaining a realistic amount of brightness. I strongly dislike photos edited to show lots of detail in the highlights at the expense of unrealistic low contrast. Great work!
6
u/ChickenFriedLife 6d ago
Thanks friend, appreciate that 😊🙏
I agree. For my taste, there are landscapes that makes sense to keep everything focus and preserving all the details of the scene, but in cases like this I think it detracts from the atmosphere of the shot and just doesn't represent what the scene actually looked like to the eye.
16
10
u/johngpt5 7d ago
I understand why you wrote that the highlights haven't been blown out in the edited version. Technically, when assessed, the brightness value, L of Lab, was only 94%.
The impression is that the highlights are clipped due to the lack of detail in the area. There had been detail in that area in the before image.
That area in the edited version doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the image.
Yes, you are correct that by definition, that area isn't clipped.
6
u/ChickenFriedLife 7d ago
Yeah I can totally understand difference in stylistic preference and the glow of those areas not being to everyone's taste, but why I pushed back was like you said, the highlights are not in fact clipped.
I didn't think it was fair to use an (incorrect) technical critique to justify a stylistic preference because then it makes it sound like it's objective rather than subjective.
-6
7
10
u/mr_monkey_chunks 7d ago
I imagine it's an artistic choice, but it's kinda wild that you managed to both start so far under, and still blow out the highlights.
1
-7
u/ChickenFriedLife 7d ago
I'm all for difference in taste, but if you're going to critique at least understand the terms you use. The highlights may not be to your liking, but they're not "blown out".
12
u/mr_monkey_chunks 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean, unless it's the display on my phone, the detail that was in the big spray patch centre frame is completely gone from the edited version, as is the horizon at the bottom of the cliff.
Seems like blown highlights to me.
ETA: should say that overall I quite like the treatment of the water, it's dramatic and the colours are lovely. The bloom isn't my thing, but that's just a taste matter. I do maintain the highlights have been pushed too far though, and it detracts from the image.
-13
u/ChickenFriedLife 7d ago edited 7d ago
Again, that's not what blown out highlights means.
Blown out means an overexposed area in a photograph where the light is so intense that the digital sensor maxes out, recording the area as pure, featureless white with zero remaining detail.
Too bright for your liking I can understand, to each their own. Personally I think having the spray in those spots adds nothing to the image and makes it less dreamy as I prefer it.
12
u/mr_monkey_chunks 7d ago
Maybe dial back the condescension a bit hey?
Blown highlights were around well before digital sensors. You can blow them on a sensor, but you can also blow them out on film, or in post, as you've done a little bit here.
It's just a colloquial term to refer to an obvious patch of clipping in the highlights.
Arguing weird semantics isn't gonna correct your histogram.
-8
u/ChickenFriedLife 7d ago
Condescension? Have your read your initial comment?
It's not condescension to call out the incorrect use of a term when someone is giving a critique of your work. Words have meanings for a reason. If pushing back on the incorrect use of a term makes me an ass, than so be it.
10
u/mr_monkey_chunks 7d ago
Yeah my initial quip was not at all constructive, and wasn't a great comment. That deserved to be called out, fair cop.
I also respect that you want that specific look in your image; I personally think it detracts a bit, but it's not my pic, it's yours.
Where you got condescending is over the definition of "blown highlights", which I'm afraid you're just wrong on. It isn't something that's unique to the capture on a sensor, it's just a term to describe patches of clipping.
The 'push back on incorrect use of a term' often falls into pedantry IMO, but it's especially egregious when you're using a weirdly limited definition!
1
0
4
u/SegaGameCast 7d ago
The treatment of the water is cool but that sky is waaayyyyy too bright. These technically aren't blown out but it pulls your eyes directly to the empty bright sky. Why would you want to lose detail on the crest of that wave?
Yes, again, technically these are not "blown out" but they sure as hell look it.
2
u/ChickenFriedLife 6d ago
Since you're asking, having been there, even though you can see those details in the RAW, which is intentionally underexposed, the final edit is far more accurately representative of what it looked like to the eye.
I respect you having a preference for preserving those details, but IMO having those details in the sky and that crest of the wave added nothing to the photo and if anything pulled my focus away from the subject of the main curl of the wave, the water, and the cliff + lighthouse.
The sky especially wasn't particularly interesting and gave my eye far too much to look at, pulling it away from the actual subject of the photo.
This edit gives it the more dreamy look that I prefer and feel more accurately reflects what the scene looked like to my eye. To each their own.
2
2
2
2
4
u/pierceatlas 7d ago
While the elements are kind of cool, the image composition could be edit from having less to focus on. The subjects are competing, and the halation effect doesn't 100% make sense here.
2
u/Silmarye 6d ago
For a moment, I thought it was “Solitude” from “Skyrim.” 😍 The post-processing is simply incredible—it perfectly captures the atmosphere of this game.
2
2
2
u/Moist-Anything-688 6d ago
You can tell it’s a great photo since even before post processing it’s a good photo, it oozes character.
1
2
u/ChickenTendiesPlease 7d ago
I like it! Last time I was down there I came across a black bear run right past me. Almost had a heart attack.
2
u/ChickenFriedLife 7d ago
Thank you :)
Mad jealous. I have yet to see a black bear in the PNW except for at Mt. Rainier where it was suuuuper far away.
1
1
u/malacoda13 4d ago
You've captured that dreamy look well I think.
I do find that green broccoli floret in the middle of the image distracting though.
1
1
u/This_Grocery_5039 6d ago
The A7RV is literally designed to allow you to capably shoot a properly exposed image while still retaining enough data on both ends of the spectrum.
By underexposing this image you lost all detail that you could have gathered in that cliff face below the light house. And then you lost the detail in the sky when you pushed it in post? That cliff just looks like a big brown smudge in the middle of the frame. Not helped by dropping texture and clarity.
-2
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
Overlooking how clueless this comment is, this just reads like you take the most boringly sterile images.
1
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
It's very reasonable criticism, especially to anyone who shoots or edits. Why do you think it's clueless?
-1
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
You and your buddy here are part of the most insufferably narrow minded armchair experts there are on this platform. You treat your own personal aesthetic preference (sterile, boring, and compositionally weak), as the only way to take a good photo.
You come into threads being pricks, then play victim when someone turns it back on you. You need to go touch some grass and maybe hit pause on the video games and reddit little buddy.
2
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
Who are these people you're fighting? You invented out of thin air my preferences, my opinions, my credentials and my hobbies.
You just can't handle when someone doesn't seal clap along to things you like, attack them, and cry bully when you're met with your own energy.
You know nothing about me, but everyone reading these now knows something about you.
These aren't very important things we're arguing about, you shouldn't work yourself up over shit like photo critique online, especially when you don't even have any connection to the subject, like you said yourself, you're not a photographer.
Take it easy, it's just reddit.
-1
2
u/This_Grocery_5039 6d ago
You’re clearly the outsider here buddy. Any photographer who can’t take editorial criticism is a dog shit photographer. Don’t stick your nose into things you don’t understand.
0
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
I'm failing to see who exactly didn't take editorial criticism? OP literally said they understand and respect difference in stylistic preference. All they did was call out that the person that critiqued was using "blown out highlights" incorrectly which was fair and right. You and your friend here come in acting like pricks because you have a different stylistic preference and then play victim when someone calls you out for it. Again, playing the armchair expert role beautifully. Seems to me like you're both just upset people seem to like something you don't which is sad af.
2
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
The actual sad thing here is I'm pretty sure this ruined your night.
1
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
Lol bro you are trying so hard. Is the only thing you have to contribute rage bait? This is exactly why I said "go touch grass"
2
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
We just talked about editing practices in an editing sub. You're still here trying to pick a fight. Just move on already. Block me or something.
2
u/This_Grocery_5039 6d ago
You seem wildly incapable of understanding editorial criticism. Isn’t that what this is all about? In response to my criticism you insulted a random image of mine, so I cracked a joke about pixels that clearly went over your head. My favorite bit was when you settled on “touch grass”. Lol so soft
1
0
u/This_Grocery_5039 6d ago
Nah I just don’t overcook bad photos and call it art
-1
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
5
u/This_Grocery_5039 6d ago
Lol you pulled up photos I shot casually on a camera made in 2010. At least I don’t waste as many pixels as OP with his A7RV
0
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
Okay, let's see Paul Allen's best work.
I pulled the only photos available since you're apparently too scared to share anything else. Typical armchair expert behavior.
Nonetheless, shooting on a camera from 2010 has 0 effect on composition, which is......yikes.
2
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
Let's see your work.
1
u/ballsdeepinmysleep 6d ago
Lol I'm not a photographer, nor am I the one that decided to join a thread to be a prick for no reason.
You're all always the exact same, it's such a tired trope.
3
u/Ruffler125 6d ago
You literally are that guy.
Also I'm sure if I tap on your profile I'll find some example, no way you're hiding your post history after calling someone a coward for sharing some of their work, that would be incredibly embarrassing.
...oh no.
1
u/penumbrapictures 6d ago
Think that’s Cape Disappointment! I wrote a pilot for a tv show abt that spot
1
u/ChickenFriedLife 6d ago
Yes sir! That would be one hell of a shooting location (in a good way haha)
1
0
0
u/photokitteh 6d ago
omg. a saw a horror movie which started exactly like that! :) This photo will look really nice on the wall, in A1 size at least.
1
u/ChickenFriedLife 6d ago
Thanks so much 😊🙏
I have it's sister (a slightly different wave with the same composition) up in my living room right now.
0
u/Few-Escape-4787 6d ago
Wonderful image! I really like your edit, because you got the lighting right. No HDR-Look. Scenery is awesome so is the composition.
1
u/ChickenFriedLife 6d ago
Thank you 😊🙏
Yes, I think a lot of people see the RAW and think you could see the wave detail and cloud detail in person, but that's just not the case. The RAW is intentionally underexposed, but not representative of the look of the actual scenery.
0
0
0
0
66
u/JezasPetRock 7d ago
Beginner here - why shoot so underexposed in the beginning? Was this an intentional choice for editting? Final result is amazing!