photographers website...How does he do it???

ben4633 wrote in post #5423923
So, why would you have to be a photographer that knows what he is doing capture colors like those on the website if those colors actually exist at the time of the shot? I would think if he is actually photographing existing colors that anyone with a camera would be able to make the same capture...

if you really think this, then why isnt everyone in the world with a camera able to be a pro photographer?
why do aunty doris's shots of her niece's wedding look nothing like the pro photographer's pictures? after all, they are just shooting what is actually going on in front of the camera...

mastery is quite a different skill to basic ability. whether or not this particular guy has correctly described his shooting procedure, shots like that are possible in camera, for the experienced master

If he's not PPing, then he definitely is doing some in camera settings. Saturation and Contrast give it a totally different look out of the camera and can save the PP step if you now exactly what you want.

But, no filters? This I don't believe. You can't capture some of the shots he's done without use of a GND or something of the sort. There's a wide range of light stops in those wide angle landscape shots. Either the sky is going to get blown out or you're going to have super dark spots.

There's a couple shots where it looks like he split the difference to get a little bit of both, but there's others where you can't capture the stop range without some sort of aid. Doesn't matter what camera you're using, the lens can only shoot at one aperture and shutter speed at a time.

You have to remember that (most) landscape shooters who do it at least very seriously, if not for a living, take far more notes than photos.

I'd bet that this guy has extensive notes on locations, exposures, f/stops, lenses, lighting, times of day, sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, etc, etc, etc...

In the same way a writer spends tons of time on research, so too do the best landscape/nature photographers. They will go back again, and again, and again until they get the shot they really want or can see in their mind's eye.

We're not talking about someone who visited on vacation. These guys/gals really know the place and learn how best to exploit it for their photographic gain.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5424481
You have to remember that (most) landscape shooters who do it at least very seriously, if not for a living, take far more notes than photos.

I'd bet that this guy has extensive notes on locations, exposures, f/stops, lenses, lighting, times of day, sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, etc, etc, etc...

In the same way a writer spends tons of time on research, so too do the best landscape/nature photographers. They will go back again, and again, and again until they get the shot they really want or can see in their mind's eye.

We're not talking about someone who visited on vacation. These guys/gals really know the place and learn how best to exploit it for their photographic gain.

Good point. I do a bit of this, and I know, especially for one particular place, exactly the shot I have in mind, its just a matter of getting the sunrise/clouds/amt of fog I want. However, I would not be able to get the colors I need, or colors as saturated as these with the foreground still balanced without the use of a GND. I find it hard to believe he is not using any form of compensation for the exposure between the foreground and the sky - whether it be GND/blending exposures/subtle HDR/whatever.

i still say its possible... and if thats true, then how cool is that? gives us all a really high benchmark to aim for with exposure control

i use PP all the time myself, but its really satisfying and fun to try hard and shoot so as i wont need to do much/any, just to see if i can 'catch' what im seeing without extra 'help'

maybe he doesn't consider the changes in ACR 'post processing'.

somethingsimple wrote in post #5424527
i still say its possible... and if thats true, then how cool is that? gives us all a really high benchmark to aim for with exposure control

Yeah, it would be amazing and I'd love to aim for that, but how? Nobody has even suggested a theory on how to expose for both the sky and foreground without a GND or PP of some sort*. It would be like Tiger Woods saying he doesn't do any practise or training at all. Amazing if it were true, but impossible to aim for, for us mere mortals!

Another thought - has anyone actually asked the photographer himself how he does it?

* I do know of a photographer who uses a black card to cover the bright areas (e.g. sky) for a fraction of the time the shutter is open, and he manages to expose both areas correctly, however to me this is just a do-it-yourself GND filter.

He sprinkled fairy dust up your skirt and you giggled.

This one has got to be GND, looks to me like you can even see the line at the base of the mountain.

http://www.jeffmurrayp​hotography.citymax.com …image/5568310/1​847120.htm

I have to say too and he has some great images but I think the one that kills me is the one below. How do you make that kind of capture without PP or filters. I have never seen that kind of color in a sunrise or sunset. Maybe I just need to get out more.

http://www.jeffmurrayp​hotography.citymax.com …image/5626669/1​847534.htm

that last one - ive seen colour like that and brighter in the sky, and the water is so blue probably because he used a cooler white balance to make the shot - to the eye it might not look as blue in person but with WB set to daylight the shade would be very blue

Exactly, Ben. That is definitely a GND or double exposure combined in PS. You can tell by the flowers that are above the horizon line. They are significantly darker than the ones below the horizon. He's shooting into the sun on this shot, so there's no way to get the flowers in the foreground properly exosed and still have the sky that dark. It defies all camera logic. Maybe if the sun was tucked behind a massive cloud or behind the mountain, you might have a decent shot at it. But the sun is out. You can tell by the multiple flares.

As for the color of that sunset. You can get that in the camera. You can bracket your WB and skew towards magenta.

Again, I've got no problems with using filters or tweaking camera settings. I do it myself. But if he's telling people he's setting his camera to auto and just taking a snap shot, uh, I don't think so.

[QUOTE=weegee;5427659]

As for the color of that sunset. You can get that in the camera. You can bracket your WB and skew towards magenta.

I would love to know how to do that. How do you bracket WB, and what do you mean by skew towards magenta. I always have the mind set that my WB is set to auto and then set as needed in RAW PP.

setting WB to flourescent should do it

[QUOTE=ben4633;5430377​][QUOTE=weegee;5427659​]

As for the color of that sunset. You can get that in the camera. You can bracket your WB and skew towards magenta.

I would love to know how to do that. How do you bracket WB, and what do you mean by skew towards magenta. I always have the mind set that my WB is set to auto and then set as needed in RAW PP.

Ben, piece of cake. On your 30d, hit menu. Below the AEB line (auto exposure bracket) there is White Balance Bracket/Shift. Hit enter and it will bring up a color cross, with B, G, A, and M. Dial, I think to the right, and you will see two squares move off center in opposite directions. Keep dialing and it will be more extreme. Now, when you take a photo, the photo will have 3 white balances. Centered, and then skewed number of "stops" away from center towards M (magenta) or G(green), etc. depending on how you dial it in.