# Unich Falls - Glen Esk



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

Took a walk out to Unich Falls at the end of Glen Esk on Sunday, it was a great day out but i dont think im built to walk that distance, still recovering now lol










As usual thanks for looking and feel free to comment

Mike


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

ookay, how did you get the light so balanced?


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> ookay, how did you get the light so balanced?


hey Bret, i have found myself a new way to PP. Basically when shooting this i underexposed until the blinkies were no longer showing then using ACR (adobe camera raw) i lifted the exposure, used the adjustment brush to reduce it on the sky and water. After that when in photoshop i did some selective burning / dodging.

This was a hard shot as the sun was directly above the fall facing us, Chris that was with me struggled due to the top of the fall and sky blowing out and ended up having to crop that out of the image. He has a silky longer exposure version of this over on talkphotography.

Mike


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

OK, that explains quite a bit. You can always HDR stuff like this, waterfalls lend themselves to it beautifully.

An alternative way would be to use a flash to light the rocks (but then you've got WB issues) or a hard, strong ND to block out the sky.

You've done a good job, most won't notice it. Apologies for spoiling the surprise 

Bret


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

Actually, I could explain for the not-so-understanding....

Eyes are significantly better than sensors at capturing the bright and dark sections of a picture, so we have a massive advantage over cameras.

In this case, you have bright sunlight at the top of the pic and dark rocks at the bottom. I did something very much like this at the weekend, with a black wheel / tyre in shadow and a white wall behind. The black disappears into a "black cat in a coal cellar at midnight" mess as soon as you try to expose correctly for the bright wall.

There are a couple of ways around this: the electronic way and the slightly more manual way.
Manual: use a filter - an ND filter - to reduce the light coming through in the sky section. Problems? Well, the positioning is a complete pig and it's possible that your specific shot won't allow this (for example another hill in the middle).
Electronic: as Mike explained, essentially making sure that the highlights aren't blown (and keeping it absolutely on the edge of blowing) and then re-touching, pulling the whole shot up and maybe layering to darken the sky but lighten the rocks. It's not a three minute job (I've given up for the moment on the tyre / wall shot from the weekend) but it is more than possible. The only question will be if the final result looks natural or not. This one's very nicely done, the light on the rocks isn't too bright, so it's almost as if there's another set of light coming in from the right / behind, like a reflection.

The third option would be HDR; then you'd take, say, 7 shots, all set at the same f number and changing the shutter from close to all white to close to all black. Combine in, say, photomatix, and you'll get the detail from the rocks while retaining detail in the sky. It's slightly easier than doing it the layering way but not as rewarding.

HtH.

Bret


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> Actually, I could explain for the not-so-understanding....
> 
> Eyes are significantly better than sensors at capturing the bright and dark sections of a picture, so we have a massive advantage over cameras.
> 
> ...


Great explanation there Bret, i personally avoid HDR as much as possible with landscapes although i do use filters a lot, on this occassion the tops of the hills would have all ended up dark so this new method i have discovered seemed the best option. Just another phase im going thru so probably see a fair bit more of this over next few months

Mike


----------



## tom_painter85 (Jul 5, 2007)

That's a beautiful shot, I don't totally understand how it was done, but I'm still getting to grips with PS so hopefully...!!

Really nice, you must be chuffed :thumb:


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

A very nicely exposed shot!


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

tom_painter85 said:


> That's a beautiful shot, I don't totally understand how it was done, but I'm still getting to grips with PS so hopefully...!!
> 
> Really nice, you must be chuffed :thumb:


Thanks tom, i am very pleased with it to be honest.

I only started photography in 2008 and must admit PS was like trying to speak another language for the first year or so, think im slowly getting somewhere now though. I bought Digital Photo magazine and used their monthly DVD of lessons which helped a lot. Stick with it, defo worth the persistance.



Brazo said:


> A very nicely exposed shot!


Thanks, the world of digitial makes this so much more possible :thumb:


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Not a problem

The above shot is like a million times better than this one http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=228766
!!


----------



## Mr Mike (Oct 2, 2007)

Brazo said:


> Not a problem
> 
> The above shot is like a million times better than this one http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=228766
> !!


Well im not sure if i should thank you or not for that comment lol

Heading back to Reekie Linn soon to shoot the falls from the base, kinda hoping the water levels have reduced so the falls split in two, when that happens you have a 6 meter top section then a flat wide area before the lower one that drops a further 18 meters, the water breaks up across the lower part creating 3-4 seperate flows.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

its all good

The more you go back to a place and shoot, the better it becomes, at least up to a point!


----------

