robertbauer-badhomburg
AUTHENTICITY in landscape photography
Please note: Technical discussion about know-how and know-why!
+++++++++++
Valais Alps, Mischabel range, from left to right: Alphubel, Täschhorn, Dom, Nadelhörner.
Standing on the Rhone Glacier or the Furka Pass, you have a phenomenal view of the Rhone Valley, with the High Valais Alps on the horizon, including the Mischabel range, the peak of the Matterhorn and the majestic Weisshorn. However, there is also exactly 68.37 km of air between the pass summit and the Täschhorn, with all the consequences that normally occur: air shimmer, haze, fog and in some cases poor light. Is it still worth taking a photo?
YES AND NO! As is almost always the case, it depends on whether you can achieve the necessary level of detail in the photo using all the tools at your disposal before and after taking the shot. Of course, it's best to take such a documentary photo in foehn weather conditions, using a tripod and a higher-priced (high-resolution) lens, in RAW. You can use a polarising filter (caution!) and do a series of exposures (HDR), but ultimately you have to leave everything else to the ‘art of the computer’ in post-processing.
No sooner said than done. There is no one-size-fits-all switch, and almost without exception, all relevant profiles lead to an even worse result than the muddy RAW/DNG file itself. So you have to fight your way through manually with a lot of back and forth, trial and error. I have to ask myself how dominant the foreground, which is only illuminated by side lighting, should be, and how I want to depict snow and glacier ice WITHOUT COLOUR CAST and with the appropriate sky. An image with a significantly shorter focal length can provide guidance here.
The final result is therefore a ‘photo edit’ without the use of AI; however, all other controls (exposure, colour temperature, contrast, sharpness, brightness, etc.) were pushed to their limits. In ‘analogue’ photography, this would not have been possible, of course, but in the digital world we have the right tools to do so. My guiding idea was: how would I see the Mischabel group at a significantly shorter distance with a normal focal length or a slight telephoto lens? And now I have an answer that tells us what is possible when necessary, and what, for example, a Canon L lens or comparable lenses from other manufacturers can do better than optics whose laboratory measurements cannot compete with professional and significantly more expensive lenses. I thought that this could be communicated to colleagues interested in technology in a photo community. Anyone who wants to is welcome to join the discussion.
Thoughts are free.
++++++++++++++++++
EXIF data added manually:
Archive image, Canon EOS 5DII, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM, ISO 200, 400mm, 1/800sec, f9.
AUTHENTICITY in landscape photography
Please note: Technical discussion about know-how and know-why!
+++++++++++
Valais Alps, Mischabel range, from left to right: Alphubel, Täschhorn, Dom, Nadelhörner.
Standing on the Rhone Glacier or the Furka Pass, you have a phenomenal view of the Rhone Valley, with the High Valais Alps on the horizon, including the Mischabel range, the peak of the Matterhorn and the majestic Weisshorn. However, there is also exactly 68.37 km of air between the pass summit and the Täschhorn, with all the consequences that normally occur: air shimmer, haze, fog and in some cases poor light. Is it still worth taking a photo?
YES AND NO! As is almost always the case, it depends on whether you can achieve the necessary level of detail in the photo using all the tools at your disposal before and after taking the shot. Of course, it's best to take such a documentary photo in foehn weather conditions, using a tripod and a higher-priced (high-resolution) lens, in RAW. You can use a polarising filter (caution!) and do a series of exposures (HDR), but ultimately you have to leave everything else to the ‘art of the computer’ in post-processing.
No sooner said than done. There is no one-size-fits-all switch, and almost without exception, all relevant profiles lead to an even worse result than the muddy RAW/DNG file itself. So you have to fight your way through manually with a lot of back and forth, trial and error. I have to ask myself how dominant the foreground, which is only illuminated by side lighting, should be, and how I want to depict snow and glacier ice WITHOUT COLOUR CAST and with the appropriate sky. An image with a significantly shorter focal length can provide guidance here.
The final result is therefore a ‘photo edit’ without the use of AI; however, all other controls (exposure, colour temperature, contrast, sharpness, brightness, etc.) were pushed to their limits. In ‘analogue’ photography, this would not have been possible, of course, but in the digital world we have the right tools to do so. My guiding idea was: how would I see the Mischabel group at a significantly shorter distance with a normal focal length or a slight telephoto lens? And now I have an answer that tells us what is possible when necessary, and what, for example, a Canon L lens or comparable lenses from other manufacturers can do better than optics whose laboratory measurements cannot compete with professional and significantly more expensive lenses. I thought that this could be communicated to colleagues interested in technology in a photo community. Anyone who wants to is welcome to join the discussion.
Thoughts are free.
++++++++++++++++++
EXIF data added manually:
Archive image, Canon EOS 5DII, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM, ISO 200, 400mm, 1/800sec, f9.