FANTASY...

99% of the time, I work in Photoshop the way I used to work in the darkroom--I manipulate contrast and dynamic range with layer masks instead of paper grades. I do my dodging and burning on adjustment layers with a trackball (I must admit that I do miss waving my hands above the print as though I were performing ancient magics...). Every so often, however, I stray from the pure and unpolluted path and lose myself in the creative potential of the program.

This Morpho butterfly was photographed in bright noonday sunlight in Costa Rica. There must have been a 20 stop contrast range and I worked for hours, trying unsuccessfuly to create a reasonable image. Not even PhotoMatix (an HDR program) could salvage this one. So I said, "Let's ignore reality and just play".

And there you have it...

Color Problems: Part 3

I then take a second exposure, using values that bring the red histogram back within reasonable range. I say reasonable because there may be spikes of red and yellow which are simply NOT capture-able (is that a word?) by your sensor. This looks like a pretty under-exposed image on the LCD, but I take it anyway.

When both images are opened in Camera Raw (or whatever software you use), there is visible detail in the darker one within the areas of red that were blown out on the original exposure. When I blend those two together, I have one image which maintains detail throughout.

Color Problems: Part 2

So here is the original image. Again, the luminance histogram (the black-and-white one) tells me that the exposure is just fine. Experience tells me, however, that red is n easy color to overexpose, and I check the RGB histogram. Imagine my (lack of) surprise when it shows me that the red channel is way blown out!

I take my first exposure based on the luminance histogram, and you can see above the areas of red next to and in front of the Japanese beetle that have no detail whatsoever.

Just Playing...

Yet Another Use for Layer Masks...

We know that depth-of-field decreases as magnification increases, that is, as you move closer to your subject. In this image, I could either have the edge of the flower in focus or the insides of the flower, but not both at the f-stop I had chosen. And I had chosen a shallow depth-of-field because I wanted the background to be just a soft green, with no distracting detail.

Once again, Photoshop to the rescue. I photographed the flower twice, once with the inside sharp and once with the edge sharp. No other settings were changed except for the point of focus. In Photoshop, I brought both images together with a Layer Mask. (I always make the top image the one from which I will be using the most information, in this case the outer flower). I then used the Brush tool to bring out the sharp detail in the center. Note that there will always be a slight change in size, since when you change focus, there will be a change in magnification.

Once again, is this cheating? Or are we simply bringing to the screen the image as our eyes saw it in the field? Your call, but perhaps another reason to learn to use Photoshop's Layer Mask. But remember, this is a technique that needs to be planned for while you are photographing. I have put together as many as four exposures of the same subject to create the image I wished to see.

Composites---Imagination at Work!

I couldn't show dragonfly photographs without posting this one. One of my favorite images, it is entirely made up. It was composed of 4 different photographs and put together in Photoshop.
Reeds, insect, moon, and clouds--all from different times and places. The only common denominator--my imagination.

What I like:
The monotonic, dreamy softness of it.

What I don't like:
Not much. I'm not sure that the perspective of the moon is totally believable in terms of size and sharpness.

Any comments?