Bridal Bouquet

click image to enlarge

When asked to photograph a friends wedding, I felt a bit unsure if it wouldn't go beyond my capacities. So I made clear that for professional results they would have to hire an experienced pro. In the end they decided to take what I would deliver and I had quite concentrated 90 minutes taking pictures and 2 hours converting the raw files to jpegs. I still don't feel comfortable with in-camera jpegs, especially in mixed light or available light situations. And the batch mode of bibble, the possibility to easily copy settings and the powerful noise ninja makes this decision not too hard.

this photo on flickr

Some rights reserved.

raw power

click image to enlarge

no, i won't bore you with this topic here again. but raw power this is, the power of the green weißbach waters (which is kind of oxymoronic as weißbach means white creek) cascading down in their canyon. having worked quite a while on this picture i am still not completely satisfied. i think i managed quite well to bring out the deep colors of water and moss as well as the brilliance of the reflections, but compositionally the right border puzzles me because of the out-of-focus blur. f-stop was already 11, 16 might have been better but at an focal length of 180 mm-e i doubt it would have rendered the rock in complete sharpness. i tried some cropping, but for several reasons i want to stick with the old barnackian 3:2 ratio (i estimate it to be more dynamic than 4:3) and then i loose too much of the diagonals, rocks and whitewater. so i will have to live with it. a view camera might have helped to solve this problem, or 2 shots with different planes of focus (i had used a tripod anyhow) and following combination in the gimp. alas - would/should/could doesn't really help, so i enjoy what i have got and what i am able to destill out of it.

this photo on flickr

Some rights reserved.

green weißbach waters

click image to enlarge

is there a life outside the raw (file)? probably there is. and i do know, yes, that the eye of the photographer is important for the picture, her or his feeling for composition, balance and all those factors that have to be considered in "the moment it clicks". but all this fiercely defending the jpeg as the only necessary format that a good photographer needs (ken rockwell comes to no good remembrance here) in my eyes suffers from a singular flaw: the file from the camera is just another factor for a successful image.

it's an undisputable fact that great photographic art can originate from media that do detract some factors from the photographers influence - think only of the polaroid process - and some pictures work because of qualities that allow to disregard technical qualities in the printmaking process. but the raw file in my eyes is the equivalent for the film original, the basis for an image, basis in a process that reveals image components that would remain hidden without diligent work.

decades ago this work could only be done in the darkroom, now the computer screen has replaced for many of us the darkroom work (let's put aside the new possibilities of this tool or toolkit), but at least i do similar things as before: dodging, burning in, now complemented with local contrast enhancement and local sharpening, partial control of saturation etc.

the preview image to the right at first glance looks dull, but working with the new layer tools of bibble5 (still in preview) and subsequent local contrast enhancement plus refocus sharpening in gimp created a whole new image out of the raw file.

no, at least for pictures like this there is no life outside the raw.

this photo on flickr

Some rights reserved.