El Capitan Morning

© Stephen Shoff

El Capitan Morning

Stephen Shoff 2/13/2013 9:46:18 PM

Something really strange is going on here. There is absolutely no sharpening applied to this image #1514536

Peter W. Marks 2/14/2013 8:50:20 AM

Not quite sure what you mean about the "no sharpening" Stephen, so I will wait for others to discuss this. In the meantime I will both admire the setting but regret that when I visited Yosemite (and couldn't even pronounce it) some 25 years ago I didn't have a camera with me. #10568004

Stephen Shoff 2/14/2013 11:45:57 AM

Sharpening -- unsharp filter, overlay layer with high-pass filter applied, ACR Vibrance or Clarity adjustments, or other 3rd party vendor's that have filters that increase "structure" #10568173

Peter W. Marks 2/14/2013 12:01:16 PM

Sorry Stephen, I didn't make myself clear. I am perfectly familiar with 'sharpening' having had Photoshop way back since CS2 and now PSE9 but what I was questioning was why you mentioned 'no sharpening'. What is the 'really strange' thing you are referring to that you appear to think we might attribute to sharpening? #10568192

Dale Hardin 2/14/2013 12:35:23 PM

I understand your question and agree Peter. But I suspect that he is referring to the sharp line of the rock crest against the skyline. It gives the appearance of a composite. Is that the case Stephen?

I know you are a stickler for technically correct settings, exposures, etc and indeed, the histogram indicates this image is perfectly exposed.

However, I believe it would benefit from a little "cheating" by straying away from the technically perfect, to an artistic variation a bit more pleasing to the eye.

what I have in mind is a simple levels adjustment. About 30 - 1.00 - 250 to be exact and then mask the ground snow from the change. This will retain the original look but with a bit more drama. What do you think? #10568247

Stephen Shoff 2/14/2013 5:21:30 PM

Peter/Dale -- I have noticed in this and in a number of my recent BP uploads that the images appear over-sharpened after uploading. They have much harder, bright small details than the images appear to have in either my photoshop windows or in the "slide show" views of the resized JPG images that I make for uploading. Because of this, I have become more sensitive about taking the common step of sharpening an image after the resizing and JPG conversion, and didn't do it at all in preparing this image. In this case, Dale is seeing this a unusual sharpness along the crest of El Capitan that he was attributing to artifacts from a composite. This image is not a composite. However, I also noticed today that on my lower quality monitor at work, this perceived over-sharpening doesn't appear. So what I was referring to may not be as visible to others as to me. I would expect it to be visible to BP judges.

Dale. I've applied your suggestion as described. I had actually accomplished the same dramatic effect in the sky and rock face with a multiply that I then toned down by reducing opacity. In your level-based approach, I think I lost the "atmospherics" from the thin ground fog. I'm not willing to lose the "atmospherics" that result from the levels adjustment. I can bring the drama in the sky and rock face in my original. I'll wait for the Phello's feedback on this suggestion before I make a decision. #10568512

Stephen Shoff 2/14/2013 5:29:25 PM

By the way for general interest...

The small white vertical line at the far end of the rock face that drops down a short distance from the top of is Horsetail Falls, the season run-off that is the current "Fire Fall" that will get a lot of photographic interest towards the end of this month...if there is still any water flowing in the waterfall this year. #10568521

Jeff E Jensen 2/14/2013 7:18:26 PM

I'm not seeing the issues, but I really like the adjustments in the second image.

Some day I'm going to make it Yosemite. #10568609

Dale Hardin 2/14/2013 8:06:58 PM

thanks for trying that Stephen. I generally use the multiply blend for this also but had thought you preferred the levels adj, so that is why I suggested it. whatever works is my motto. #10568632

Susan M. Reynolds 2/14/2013 11:25:24 PM

I like the second image too. I'm so envious of those that can get all around to take photos of such magnificent places...sure wish I could make that trip to Utah this year! #10568752

Rita K. Connell 2/15/2013 6:59:06 AM

I really like the edit for what it did to the mt and sky but not to the trees and fog. it made them to dark. and I agree the darkness took away the "atmospherics" #10569153

Dale Hardin 2/15/2013 8:25:55 AM

I think the darkness actually added to the mystique, but if that is a problem, simply increasing the size of the mask will give whatever you want. #10569271

Stephen Shoff 2/15/2013 11:30:46 AM

Thanks for your comments. I'll increase the transparency of my multiply layer to strengthen the sky and upper rocks. My masking on that layer will preserve my intent for the ground fog. #10569490

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).


I'm still working through photos from my recent weekend in Yosemite.

Exif: F Number: 11, Exposure Bias Value: -0.67, ExposureTime: 1/320 seconds, Flash: did not fire, compulsory flash mode, ISO: 800, White balance: Auto white balance, FocalLength: 30.00 mm, Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Uploaded on 2/13/2013 9:43:04 PM

Copyright for this gallery photo belongs solely to Stephen Shoff. Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.