Nyhavn in the Morning – Improving the sky


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Nyhavn in the Morning In the heart of Copenhagen in Denmark lies Nyhavn (New Port). It used to be a port for trading goods, but now it's a place, that the people of Copenhagen gather for a cold beer or a homemade Ice cream during the summer. The canal tours also have their starting point here.

Buy a print this photo

It’s tough being a photographer when midsummer is close. You really have to get up early in the morning to capture the sunrise, but you are rewarded with a wonderful experience. This particular morning I drove to the center of Copenhagen: I had a few photo projects I wanted to complete, one of which was to get a good shot of Nyhavn (New Port), located in the heart of Copenhagen in Denmark. The tourists and the locals mingle on sunny days, get a beer or a home made Ice cream. Nyhavn is just great!

About the post-process

The photo is a 5 shot HDR photo. I made three candidates that I used to mix into the final image: two different ones in Photomatix and a third one in Lightroom. At some point, I tried changing the hue of the image, into something more golden, bringing it further away from the original shot, but bringing it into the peaceful atmosphere there was on this very early morning. This is the 0-exposure:

Nyhavn in the morning - before

A side effect from the tone mapping in Photomatix is that the sky is full of noise and there is some ghosting in the clouds which I didn’t like too much. In this case the clouds are shaped like long threads, so I decided to use a radial blur to emphasize their softness. This also removes the noise in the sky: a side effect of using radial blur. However, before doing that I cleaned the sky for masts, in order to get good looking radial blurry clouds. If I didn’t do this the masts would get blurred into the clouds as well. I used the Healing brush in Photoshop to remove the masts: it doesn’t have to be a perfect job, because the radial blur will smooth everything out.

Step 1 select radial blur

And then I selected Zoom in Radial blur and moved the center. It is important that the center gives lines that match the lines in the clouds. And after that I merged the blurred clouds into the final image.

Step 2 use radial blur

Giving the result below. By mixing this sky into the master image I get a great looking sky, with no noise and no ghosting in the clouds.

Step 3 only use the sky

The Hammer Mill


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

 Nikon D800, Nikon 24-70mm, ISO 125, 24mm, f/8.0, 1/500 sec

Buy a print

The old hammer mill, used by the Hammer Smith to create weapons amongst other things in the old days. The house is from 1765 and now house a small museum and a nice cafe. The mill is a water mill.

About the composition

I have build the composition up around some repeating objects, the boulders in the front, and then the reflection in the lake. The three stones in the foreground repeat a shape and points to the house, which also works as a repeating object.

The eye can also follow the lake shore around and get to the house. This way there are several leading lines for the viewer to follow.

The photo does have a lot of detail, and is best viewed in a large version. This is both good and bad.

Before photo

The before photo looks like this:

The old hammer mill - before shot

As you can see much more flat. The HDR has put a lot of detail in to the trees and the boulders in front and in general made the photo pop a lot more.

On a tight budget? Use GIMP instead of Photoshop!


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Sunset From the Old Mound Not far from my home town Roskilde in Denmark, lies this mound from the Bronze Age. From this place you can see for many miles around. This photo I have created using Lightroom and Gimp.

You don’t have to spend a fortune on software to make great photos. There is only one piece of software, that you really need to buy and that is Adobe Lightroom. And it just got released today in version 5. Lightroom not only organizes your photos, it also gives an incredible power to post process your photos and combining it with GIMP, which is totally free, you get an amazing powerful set of tools.

Learn how to make the photo below look as great as this HDR photo by using Lightroom and GIMP. You find the GIMP tutorial here.

Denmark - Sunset from the old mound

This photo I shot from the top of an old mound from the Bronze Age. It’s located just out-side Roskilde. I shot seven bracketed shots using my Promote Control and a Nikon D600, but I ended up using only three.

Understanding crop factor, wide angled lenses and tele lenses


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Not so hidden passage When I shot this photo I was worried about the bum walking in the far end of the passage, but because I used a wide angled lens, he got pushed so far away, that he grew so small that it didn't matter. It is a shot from the back side of the National Museum in Denmark.
Not so hidden passage

When I shot this photo I was worried about the bum walking in the far end of the passage, but because I used a wide angled lens, he got pushed so far away, that he grew so small that it didn’t matter. But when I shot this shot, I didn’t really understand what was going on and because I have spend quite some time thinking about it, I will share my thoughts on the topic.

When I bought my first DSLR back in 2007, a Canon 400D, I was told that I had to multiply my mm on the lens by 1.6. And because I had a 300 mm lens, that was equivalent of 480mm. I found this odd, but that was cool because I had a 70-300mm, which was really a 112-480mm. The crop factor made it an  even more extreme tele zoom lens. That was cool. I learned too that there are different crop factors, e.g. Nikon has a crop factor of  only 1.5, so I thought Canon was just a notch better than Nikon at this crop factor thing. Later I found out, that this was one big misunderstanding.

To fully understand this I have to explain several things, I will:

  • Explain the difference between a camera with an APS-C sensor and a camera with a full frame sensor.
  • Then I will explain how conversions between the APS-C sensor and full frame sensor work.
  • I will also explain how wide angle and tele lenses work and what lens compression is.
  • And last I will explain a bit about what effect this while crop factor thing has on bokeh (out of focus back ground).

It’s actually less than a year ago I figured out how it really works and that it is a big mistake, to think of it as ‘equivalent’. It was after I bought my Canon 5D Mark III and a bunch of lenses, that I learned how it really works (you might also like to read my Review of Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800 and Nikon D600).

A cropped sensor (APS-C sensor) vs a full frame sensor

Inside a digital camera, there is a sensor that captures the light that comes through the lens and translates that into an image. Sensors in DSLRs most commonly comes roughly in two different sizes, the APS-C sensor and the full frame sensor. The smaller APS-C sensor is approx 23mm x 15mm, while the larger full frame sensor is about 36mm x 24mm. The exact size varies from brand to brand. The full frame sensor corresponds to the old 35mm films.

Size of Full frame vs Cropped sensor

When you attach a lens to a camera, a lens does not change how it works, whether it is attached to a full frame camera or an APS-C camera. A 15mm lens is defined from the way the glass is constructed and placed in the lens. By moving it to from one camera type to the other, does not change the lens or the glass.

The difference lies in what is captured by the sensor and because the APS-C sensor is smaller, it also captures a smaller portion of the scene that comes through the lens, while a full frame sensor captures a larger portion of what comes through the lens. And this is very important to understand! If you didn’t quite understand it, I encourage you to try to read it again.

If I shoot a scene with a 15mm lens on a full frame camera body and I then move the lens to an APS-C camera body and shoot the scene again, I will get a smaller portion of the scenery with the APS-C sensor. If I cropped the image I shot with the full frame camera in Lightroom or Photoshop in the post-process, I would get exactly the same image from the two cameras (probably in different mega pixels, but otherwise the same image).

If I want to capture the same scene on the APS-C camera, I would have to compensate, for what the sensor crops away. There are two ways of compensating, one is to move further away and the other is use a wider lens, which captures more of the scenery. Let’s stick with the wider lens.

Now the crop factor comes into play. It is calculated like this using the width of the sensor 36mm / 23mm = approx 1.5. And remember the exact numbers vary from brand to brand.

So if I used a 10mm lens on an APS-C sensor, that would compensate from what the sensor crops away, because 10mm x 1.5 = 15mm. The is the reason for the confusion of the lenses being ‘equivalent’. But let’s not forget, that it is not longer the same glass in the lenses. On my full frame camera I have a 15mm lens and I have a 10mm lens on my APS-C camera and they do produce different images, as you will be able to see further down in this article.

And these two lenses behave different because of lens compression, which brings me to the other part.

Understanding lens compression (Wide angle and tele lenses)

The human eye sees the world much in the same way as a 50mm lens does. That’s probably one of the reasons, why 50mm lenses are popular among photographers. Almost every camera brand has got a fairly cheap and excellent 50mm prime lens.

Wide angle lenses are shorter than 50mm, while tele lenses are longer than 50mm. Both wide angle and tele lenses comes with a zoom (e.g. 16-35mm and 70-200mm), and there are lenses that works in both areas, like the very popular 24-70mm zoom lens. Every brand seems to have a superb 24-70mm, as well as they have a 50mm lens.

But what happens when you get a longer lens? Or shorter lens? In terms of millimeters that is.

Let’s start with the tele lenses. You most probably have realized, that they enlarge things, but something else happens too. Things get compressed. Even though things you have within your frame, are far apart, can suddenly look close to each other. This is called lens compression.

And what happens with a wide angle lens is, the exact opposite, things get pushed further away, than they really are. And when you get to the extreme wide angel things in the corners gets distorted too. So a wide angle lens decompress or expands a scenery.

This calls for some examples to get the grip of it. I found a bridge here in my hometown, and then I shot this bridge as the primary object in my photo, and kept it approximately the same size, and different focal lengths. This is something, that you can’t do with your own eyes, but your brain knows how to translate it.

I have tried keep the frame of the bridge in the same size, and started at 14mm, in which case I had to actually stand on the bridge, and then I moved backwards and took shots at 24mm, 50mm, 70mm,100mm, 200mm and 300mm. And that gives this sequence of photos:

Lens compression 14mm moving14mm. Can you spot the tree in the center?
Lens compression 24mm moving24mm. You can see a small tree in the center now.
Lens compression 50mm moving50mm. Now the tree is clear, but still small. This is the way the human eye sees it.
Lens compression 70mm moving70mm. The tree grows.
Lens compression 100mm moving100mm. The tree now fills the inner frame of the bridge.
Lens compression 200mm moving200mm. The tree has grown out of the inner frame of the bridge.
Lens compression 300mm moving300mm. Now you can’t even see the horizon.

Lens compression 14mm fixed location

And this final image is back to the 14mm, taken from where I took the 300mm shot.

As you can see things change quite dramatically. As you get longer focal lenths, things that are further away suddenly seems closer. The tree in the back ground, suddenly grows big.

This you can use as a feature, when you compose your photo, either by pushing something further away or pulling something close. If you use a tele lens to shoot mountains, you can make them look bigger, than they really are.

Lens compression on cropped and full frame cameras

Let’s return to the cropped camera vs full frame camera issue and the crop factor. As you might be able to realize now, a crop factor of 1.5, does not make a 10mm lens on an APS-C camera equivalent to a 15mm lens on a full frame camera.

Depth of field on cropped vs full frame cameras

Another thing, that comes from the optics, is that wide angle lenses have a huge depth of field, meaning that you can have almost everything in focus, while tele lenses are good to make blurry back grounds on portraits. If you are shooting landscape photos using extreme wide angle lenses, you will be able to get even more in focus on a 10mm lens compared with a 15mm lens. This can be an advantage. So a cropped camera will in general have a larger depth of field, than a full frame camere, if you use the crop factor to recalculate the focal length. But this also has got one more implication, which involves the bokeh.

Bokeh on cropped vs full frame cameras

Because the depth of field is larger on a cropped camera, if you use the crop factor calculation on the focal length (like 30mm on a cropped camera equals 45mm on a full frame camera), the bokeh also changes. The bokeh is the “out of focus” blurry back ground that looks to great on portraits. Let’s have a look at a 100% crop of both images at the same resolution.

DX bokeh100% crop of a 30mm, f/2.8 on a cropped camera. Notice the bokeh on the flowers.

FX bokeh

100% crop of 45mm, f/2.8 on a full frame camera. Notice much softer and stronger bokeh.

As you can see you get a much softer and nicer bokeh on the full frame camera, which is an advantage if you are shooting photos, where you need the bokeh.

Gone – 1 year anniversary


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Gone

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 24-105mm, ISO 400, 24mm, f/16, 1/100 sec

One year and 1 day ago I got my first high-end DSLR – a Canon 5D Mark III. And one year ago today, exactly, I took this photo – the first one I have found good enough to be published. This version of the image is actually the second version I published. The first one I wasn’t quite satisfied with and I returned when my post-processing skills improved.

The photo is a single exposure that I have processed as a pseudo HDR. I did that by creating two virtual copies in Lightroom, and then setting the exposure compensation to -2 and +2 respectively. That gave me a -2, 0 and +2 version of the image. However, the dynamic range of the Canon 5D Mark III is really not very impressive (you might want to read about it in my review of Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 and D600). Because of that, there was heavy noise in the darker regions of the +2 image, because the shadows had been raised so much. So what I did was to do some heavy duty noise reduction on the +2 version of the image.

I then did my tone mapping with Photomatix Pro (see my tutorial on using Photomatix) and got a good result that improved the photo immensely. I did a few other things, that I don’t remember in detail, but what I got was this image:

Denmark - Roskilde - Gone

As you can see, the lower part of the image is more or less the same, but the upper part has changed a lot.

What sometimes happens, when you make HDR photos, I have realized, is that they get way too gray’ish. That is a side effect of making HDR photos and it is your job, as a photographer to handle that that in some way. In this particular case, the sky was complete wrong and it was way too grey and I wanted to fix that. Some time later I found the original photo and started working the sliders in Lightroom, and focused only on the sky. Below you first see the original image, and then you see the sky I got, by working the sliders. What I did was take my Photomatix version of the photo, and exchanged the sky, with this new one from Lightroom, and that really made the image.

Original photo without any adjustments:

Gone - Original photo

And a Lightroom version, in which I focused on the sky only:

Gone - with good sky

I then replaced this sky, with the sky in my tone mapped image, and that really did a change to the photo.

Roskilde Cathedral by Night – Change your vantage point


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Roskilde Cathedral by Night Roskilde Cathedral is almost a thousand years old. The Church is on the list of UNESCO's world inheritage and is absolutely worth a visit, if you ever come by Roskilde or Denmark. The Church is fairly big (not in the Sct. Peters Cathedral in the Vatican, but it's no small cathedral. Infact I needed a 14mm full frame lens to be able to capture all of it, from the square in front of the church.

 Nikon D800, Nikkor 14-24mm, ISO 200, 23mm, f/4.5, 1.6 sec (zero exposure)

Roskilde Cathedral is almost a thousand years old. The Church is on the list of UNESCO’s world inheritage and is absolutely worth a visit, if you ever come by Roskilde or Denmark. The Church is fairly big (not in the Sct. Peters Cathedral in the Vatican size, but it’s no small cathedral).

Shooting the photo

I had a lot of trouble getting a close shot of the church, if I wanted all of the church included. The square infront of the church is fairly big, but not compared the the size of the church. In the end I needed a 14mm full frame lens to be able to capture all of it. The first time I tried with a 17mm, and was able to include all of it, but I had to tip the camera so much, that I couldn’t get a propper good looking church out of it. The problem with wide angle lenses is, that when ever you tilt your camera, the lines start to scew, and the more you tip, the more you scew the image. And if it gets too scewed you can’t fix anymore, without ruining the photo.

But with this photo I used a different approach. I couldn’t include all of the church easily, so I chose to focus on a part of the church, like the door. As I said the square is fairly big, and I wanted to use the lines in the cobble stones, as lead in lines, but  didn’t want terrible much rather boring ground in the lower part of the photo, so I placed the camera very close to the ground, as you can see. By doing this, I can emphasize the lines going through the cobble stones, just as well as I get more room for the church it self in the image.

Taking a low vantage point, some times work really great and emphasize lines, but don’t go low too often. It might spoil the element of surprise, in your photos…

A note on the post processing

The photo a mix of three images.

  1. A 5 shot HDR photo that I tone mapped in Photomatix Pro
  2. A double tone mapped image made in Photomatix Pro.
  3. An image created in Light room

The double tone mapped image, is only mixed in on the bricks and the cobble stones, which makes it even more moody, almost computer game graphics.

Miniature review of the Fujipix X100


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Viking ships on a rowBeen a while since I posted a photo of Viking ships. A thousand years ago, Roskilde was the home of the vikings, and the king of Denmark. The second king of Denmark Harald Bluetooth  (the modern technology is named after that guy!) rests in our Cathedral. We also have the worlds largest replica of a viking ship called the Sea Stalion. These are some of the smaller viking ships, and you can get to sail with them, as a tourist attraction.

ISO 800, 23mm, f/4.0, 1/140 sec

It has been a while since I posted a photo of Viking ships. A thousand years ago, Roskilde was the home of the vikings and the king of Denmark. The second king of Denmark Harald Bluetooth (the modern technology is actually named after that guy!) rests in our Cathedral. That kind of puts Roskilde on the map, so to speak. We also have the worlds largest replica of a viking ship called the Sea Stalion. These are some of the smaller viking ships, and you can get to sail with them, as a tourist attraction.

I shot this photo with my Fuji FinepixX100, a camera that I both love and hate and use far too little, and should have got rid of. The camera can take absolutely fantastic photos, but also has it’s flaws.

The camera looks awesome – like an old Leica or similar. I bought the brown leather cage for it as well, which only emphasizes the looks of an antique camera. And when ever I carry it around, it is always commented “Oh – that’s an old camera” – but it is not.

Basic facts:

  • 12 Mega pixels using an APS-C sensor. APS-C is awesome, compared to user smallish cameras. 12 Mega pixels is just a little to little.
  • Dynamic range 12.4 EVS (See dxomark for the lab test)
  • Maximum auto bracketing (aeb) is -1, 0, +1. As a photographer of HDR, this is just not good enough
  • Built-in Neutral Density filter ND 3. This is cool! I have used it far too little.
  • The lens is fixed at 23mm – equivalent of 35mm. A good all round size, but due to the small mega pixel cropping options are not that great. If I have the “wrong lens” attached, I will crop an image. 12 Megapixel just leaves less to crop from.
  • Weight Approx 0.5 kg. It’s not a light weight small camera.
  • Pretty awesome low light performance.

I have had the camera with me on a few vacations, but I tend to get annoyed with it. As you can see on the image of this post and this image the camera can produce absolutely awesome photos. But it has problems getting the focus spot on. I tend to get maybe 10% or 20% of my photos not tack sharp. But when it hits the focus point, the photos are awesome sharp. And the saturation I just love.

The camera is slow – it takes a long time to start up. And because of the mirrorless technology, it also focuses slowly.

The lens is fixed and not possible to switch – however, the lens is totally awesome. f/2.0 and produces fantastic images. The limit comes with the fairly low mega pixel count. If it had been a higher mega pixel count, I would have shot more shots and just cropped them.

It has a panorama feature, which works quite well. If you do it hand held, you of course have to have a fairly steady hand, otherwise you get skewed merges between images.

About low light performance. The camera is known for it’s low light performance, and that is in all fairness. However, it still get’s it ass kicked, by high level DSLRs. There is an upper limit for the everything, including Low light performance of the X100.

I love the camera because of the looks, the high image quality and the fairly compact format.

I hate the camera because, it is not good for HDR, because it only does -1, 0, +1 in automatic exposure bracketing mode. I also hate it because it fails on getting the focus spot on, in far too many photos, just as well as it is a slow camera, both in starting up and focusing.

For the casual shooter, that want’s something that that is siginificant better than the average snapshot camera, this camera really kicks in. But for the serious photographer, the camera comes in almost good enough. No doubt the image quality is totally awesome, but it’s flaws are considerate, and for that reason I use it far too little.

Blue Hour Water – using a ND filter


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

Blue Hour Water - using a ND filterThis could look like ice, but it isn't, it is a long exposure of water on a fairly windy day. It's in a narrow bay, the waves don't get big, but they had a little white foam on top. I took this photo using a tripod and because it was very windy, I dug the leggs into the sand on the beach. Otherwise the camera wasn't steady enough for a long exposure.But how to get a long exposure of 20 seconds around sunset? I did three things:1) First of all I turned the ISO down to 100. If I had shot it at ISO 200, the exposure time would have been cut in half to 10 seconds, and at ISO 400 only 5 seconds. So to maximize the exposure time I set it to the lowest ISO I could, which was ISO 100. 2) Then I also set the f-stop low (remember that low f-stops are high values) - I had it at f/16. Had I shot it at f/4, which is the highest f-stop the lens will go to, I would also have cut the shutter speed in half a few times. That's why you call a lens that has a very high f-stop like f/2.8 or maybe even f/1.4 a fast lens, because it gives shorter shutter times.3) The last and equally important step was that I attached a Neutral Density Filter (ND filter) to the lens. A ND-filter is like a pair of sunglasses that blocks the light. ND-filters comes in different flavors that are more or less dark. In this case I attached a ND density filter that stopped down the light two full Exposure Value Steps. Or in plain english it doubled the shutter speed twice, which brought the shutter speed from 5 seconds to 20 seconds.And that is how I made the water look this way. It came as surprise to myself, that it looked like ice, I had anticipated a smokey look on the water. But I guess it comes from the fact, that it is shot in the blue hour, which adds a blue color to the water. By Jacob Surland, www.caughtinpixels.com.
This could look like ice, but it isn’t, it is a long exposure of water on a fairly windy day. It’s in a narrow bay, the waves don’t get big, but they had a little white foam on top. I took this photo using a tripod and because it was very windy, I dug the legs into the sand on the beach, to keep the camera wasn’t steady enough for a long exposure.

But how to get a long exposure of 20 seconds around sunset? I did three things:

  1. First of all I turned the ISO down to 100. If I had shot it at ISO 200, the exposure time would have been cut in half to 10 seconds, and at ISO 400 only 5 seconds. So to maximize the exposure time I set it to the lowest ISO I could, which was ISO 100.
  2. Then I also set the f-stop low (remember that low f-stops are high values) – I had it at f/16. Had I shot it at f/4, which is the highest f-stop the lens will go to, I would also have cut the shutter speed in half a few times. That’s why you call a lens that has a very high f-stop like f/2.8 or maybe even f/1.4 a fast lens, because it gives shorter shutter times.
  3. The last and equally important step was that I attached a Neutral Density Filter (ND filter) to the lens. A ND-filter is like a pair of sunglasses that blocks the light. ND-filters comes in different flavors that are more or less dark. In this case I attached a ND density filter that stopped down the light two full Exposure Value Steps. Or in plain english it doubled the shutter speed twice, which brought the shutter speed from 5 seconds to 20 seconds.

And that is how I made the water look this way. It came as surprise to myself, that it looked like ice, I had anticipated a smokey look on the water. But I guess it comes from the fact, that it is shot in the blue hour, which adds a blue color to the water.

About the processing

I shot this photo as an HDR, but in the end I only used a single shot, because it ended up being perfectly exposed. I tried putting it through Photomatix, but it didn’t anything of interest. So in the end I just straightened it up using a crop tool and I added at bit of post-crop vignetting in Lightroom.

So the photo is pretty much straight out of camera.

Breaking the Ice


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352

This winter lasted a long time, but now spring has finally arrived. During the winter time I have had many opportunities to photograph ice in the fiords around Roskilde. This particular day I ventured out on the ice with a tripod and two cameras. It’s a very shallow part of the fiord and should I have gone through the ice I would have been in to the knees, no more than that. The ice does funny things around the rocks. It looks like small frozen vulcanos. There are many rocks in this area, and I  shot a few of them.

About the post-processing

I have had some problems trying to get the ice look good. Ice is basically grey’ish, maybe with a blue tint, but is not that colorful. However, when the colors of the sky reflect in the ice, you can get a little color out of it. My project has been to get some intensity out of of the ice, while still believing that it is ice. Ice is blue and the mind accepts it to be blue.

The photo is a 5 shot HDR (High Dynamic Range) photo, but to make the final photo I have used two different images I made in Lightroom from the 0-exposure and one I made in Photomatix Pro.

This is the original 0 exposure photo:

Breaking the Ice - Original

As you can see a flat and dull photo and certainly not reflecting the reality. But you can also see that almost everything is visible. There are no completely blown out areas of white, neither is there any pitch black areas. This means that there is not a lot of dynamic light in this scenery and no real need for HDR software like Photomatix, but Photomatix not only assembles several exposures into one High Dynamic Range image, it also does some post-processing of the image. The post-processing can also be applied to single photos and give really great results. In this case I had 5 different exposures, and I used them all, simply to get a better quality of image in the shadows, but I could have used just this single photo.

#1 The sky is dull. I started playing around with the sky in Lightroom and exported two different versions of the 0-exposure, and I anticipated that I would use one of those two skies in the final image. I made a beautiful one and then I did a more dramatic one. I made the two in Lightroom, because Photomatix often makes a grey’ish sky, and that does not look good. This is something I have learned over the past couple of months and come to realize, that Lightroom is pretty for making gorgeous skies. In this case, however, I was tricked – Photomatix did the best sky.

#2 The area with the golden colors reflecting in the sky has to come more alive. I did that by amp’ing up the saturation and by adding a little softness to area.

#3 Clean up. I do it every time and it makes a difference! It really does. Try and compare. In this case I used the Lasso select tool in Photoshop CS6 and then pressed SHIFT+F5 for a content aware fill. In some situations it does amazing work. And then I used the Healing Brush remove a larger number of stones and ice peckles both close the Rock and further out in the distance. This does take some time, but it is worth the effort!

This is the first of my images exported from Lightroom. You can see three horizontal lines. That is a Gradient filter. The effect starts from the lower line and reaches the maximum effect at the top line.

Breaking the Ice - The Sky

In the right hand side, you can see the settings for the Gradient in the top section. In this case I ded a fine tuning of my global changes. The global changes you find in the section below (the middle one you can see). In the middle section you can see how I simulate HDR in Lightroom. This is done by lowering the Highlights to -100 and raising the Shadows to +98 (or 100). This gives a flat HDR looking photo, but by adding some contrast and clarity things starts looking really good. I amp’ed up the saturation too, to get a great looking sky. The Black and Whites I also adjusted a little bit to add a little more punch the image.

The second image I generated from Lightroom is a more dramatic one. As you maybe can see, some of the ice from this image, is in final image. The sky from this image I didn’t use.

2013-01-25-Frozen water-190

And below is my image from Photomatix Pro. I found a really nice processing in the “Exposure Fusion” and “Method: Fusion/Natural”. I have some presets that I use and then I adjust them a bit, when I find something that I like.

Breaking the Ice - Fused

In this case the sky turned out really nice and I ended up using this sky. I also blended the Ice with the second image, giving a more blue color to the ice.

These three images I loaded into Photoshop as layers, along with the five original shots, giving me all together 8 layers. I then started mixing the final image, by using layered masks (see my tutorial on blending layers in Adobe Photoshop here). As it turned out, I never used anything from the original shots in the final image, but only from the three images displayed here.

The Court of Law


Warning: Undefined array key "multiauthor" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 114

Warning: Undefined array key "mobile" in /var/www/caughtinpixels.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/post-layout/plugin.php on line 352


One day after work I went out to shoot some photos. I was thinking of shooting the Opera House in Copenhagen. But on my way I passed the Eastern High Court of Denmark and saw the shadows from the gate, and I shot those instead of the Opera House.

Shooting the photo

My idea was to use the shadows as lead in lines and I really liked the color of the sky along with colors of the building. Preferable I would have liked to have door a little further to the left in the image, but a car was there and I couldn’t really get it to work. I tried several different compositions until suddenly the gates opened and I gave up doing more shots. I tried a couple of shots with the open gates, but it didn’t work.

The photo I took close to the ground on a small Manfrotto table tripod with an extension. With the extension fully extended it gets a little unsteady, but it is usable. I always have that one with me, if I don’t have one my full size tripods with me. Careful when you use such a small tripod in such a busy area, people are prone to kick your camera like a football, because they don’t see it.

The idea of going close to the ground, is to make the lines appear stronger, and the have less dead space from the road.

About the processing

This is the original shot, here you can see the tip of the car and a bit more of the road. That is too much of the street, but I could go into the street, because it was quite busy. The street it also way too yellow, and there is a nasty lens flare.

The Court of Law - before

This is my primary post-processing to the photo done in Adobe Lightroom 4. I use Lightroom a lot and find that I can do so many things with it. Most of the post-processing I did to the photo is done in Lightroom, only the perspective crop and the the clean up in the photo is done in Photoshop. It looks like, that Lightroom 5 will allow me to get that done within Lightroom too.

The Court of Law - before - LR Settings

I originally intended the photo to be an HDR, but it appeared not to contain a whole lot of Dynamic light, so I only did a standard post-processing to the photo, using the 0 EV version of the photo.

Lets run through the settings.

Exposure: I lowered it ever so slightly with -0.36 EV step to get the image just a little darker and more moody.

Contrast: This I raised to make shadows on the street appear more prominent.

Highlights: The slider affects the bright areas in the photo and either makes them lighter or darker. This I lowered to amp down the strong light from the lamp.

Shadows: Works like highlights, only it works on the shadows. I also lowered this to get the shadows on the street to become stronger. It is not that often I lower the shadows, but in this case I did it intentionally.

Clarity: This I raised to get more grittiness in the street and more texture in the building. It is a very potent slider and you should handle it with care.

Tone curve section: Here I adjusted two parts of the highlight area, I raised the Highlights a little again and but lowered the lights. How does these work compared to Highlights in the section above? The tone curve allows you to do more detailed adjustments, and they are applied on top of the settings. I often end up using both the slides both in the top section and in the Tone Curve section. Tone curve can add a more controlled contrast to the image. I use the slides, even though I could drag the curve around. I find that I can work the sliders in a more controlled way, than moving around the curve with my mouse..

HSL section:  This section I really use a lot too tweak colors in the photo. In this case I removed all yellow saturation and lowered the orange. There is yellow in orange, but Lightroom is clever enough only to remove the yellow. So I got rid of my yellow street, but kept my orange building. In a later final touch step I removed all saturation in the street, to get it completely grey.

The Court of Law - PS

In Photoshop CS6 I did:

#1 Remove nasty flare. I did that with a combination of content aware fill and clone stamping until it looked nice.

#2 I then did my usual clean up. Some might argue, that the stuff really was there, and therefore it should also be there in the photo. I find that the images a better and stronger image by taking my time to remove the rubble and signs on the wall and gates. I’m not making a portrait of reality, but I am making a photo.

#3 I cropped the photo in a way to avoid the large square in the lower right hand corner, but keeping the sewer cover in the left corner. And then I straighten the image a bit, using perspective crop. I did that to get rid of the building on the left, with loosing my sewer cover.