White sands

[GB1]

Recent shot from White Sands NP, in New Mexico.

This was taken on Velvia 50 but was totally underexposed due to the bright sun. I was shocked that my nikon film scanner could recover it so well using one of its settings (I guess that's why it cost so )#^$&#$ much). But I wonder if this digital emulation/extrapolations (and manipulations) are true photography?

[OldSchool]

Sweet! Just beautiful.

Is there a way to brighten the white sand without blowing out the sunset and sky?
Tim

[Yoyo Szeto]

Nice composition. The sky is great. I also find the sand a bit dark, Great shot.
yoyo

[villenadecorte]

GB- I think this is a fabulous shot. I wouldnt touch the sand... just retitle, "Blue Sand" (just kidding)
I think the darkness of the sand adds to the composition... and you may loose some of the quality of the rivets in the sand if it were lighter....
just my thoughts.
Great job!
Rebekah

[hellinvader]

this is a real outstanding picture, i love the colour and composition alot. its just so stricking and an image that people nvr seen before.

BTW,

Recent shot from White Sands NP, in New Mexico.

But I wonder if this digital emulation/extrapolations (and manipulations) are true photography?

in my point of view, why not? boots it during the scan is just another step emulating a 10mins exposure on enlarger and photopaper. if this are not true photography, the whole process of digital photography would be consider as fake photography. ;)

[jar_e]

GB,

I love it. Digital manipulation aside, it's amazing picture. I love the coolness color of the sands (almost thought it was snow) and the wonderful sun setting. Great shot.

My only critique would be that the clouds don't stretch all the way in the sky, and are just on the right hand side. But kind of out our control!

Nice shot,

Jared

[GB1]

Thks for all the compliments everyone. I see that nobody seems to have noticed the slight vignetting on the corners. It was actually much more pronounced in the original scan, I have to crop directly in (like a zoom) to get it mostly out of the shot.

Yes - I guess digital editing is here to stay. I don't think it's bad if it's just correcting some of the hobgoblims of normal photography, such as silhouetting due to meter miscalculations, etc.

Check back later, I'll post the original scan to let everyone see what the digital conversion did to an overwise throwaway slide. I'm still kind of shocked what effect it had, and at how many slides I've tossed in the past that could have been turned into something nice

[schrackman]

This is a great shot. I've been wanting to visit the white sands for a while but I'll have to wait for the next family reunion in El Paso to do it.

I would use your curves adjustment to adjust the shadows and thus brighten the sands without affecting the rest of the image.

Again, great shot!

[Sebastian]

How is using the scanner's settings any different than spending hours over smelly chemicals burning and dodging to get the perfect print?? That's right, it's less smelly and it takes less time... There is no "true" photography if you really think about it.

[Lava Lamp]

Recent shot from White Sands NP, in New Mexico.

This was taken on Velvia 50 but was totally underexposed due to the bright sun. I was shocked that my nikon film scanner could recover it so well using one of its settings (I guess that's why it cost so )#^$&#$ much). But I wonder if this digital emulation/extrapolations (and manipulations) are true photography?

Really like it - best shot I've seen here in a while. I think all (or virtually all) the published shots you see like this are heavily manipulated, either through optical filters or digital ones. I woudn't worry about it being true photography. Is a photo of someone glamorous (say Brittney Spears) any less true because she wears make-up? Well, yeah, but we are willing to accept the untruth.

[GB1]

Here's the original scan. As you can see, there's not much here to get excited about.. I used the Coolscan's DEE setting to bring out the shadowed areas. Haven't played with it in PS (which I don't have), but I do have Corel Photopaint which isn't bad. Maybe I'll take a stab at it today.

So, the consensus seems to be: Digital manipulation, or at least correction, isn't bad if it helps save a photo. I agree that even in the darkroom, people manipulate the negative, so there might not be any difference. It's probably just a new tool to do so.

Thnks for all the great comments - GB

[mattp]

Really lovely shot, I wouldn't change it personally. I'm pleased you managed to rescue this, it was definitely worth it.

Regards,

matt

[Seb]

Recent shot from White Sands NP, in New Mexico.

This was taken on Velvia 50 but was totally underexposed due to the bright sun. I was shocked that my nikon film scanner could recover it so well using one of its settings (I guess that's why it cost so )#^$&#$ much). But I wonder if this digital emulation/extrapolations (and manipulations) are true photography?

Well I don't know how true to life this is (in direct comparison with what you could see on the field, I am not reffering to the original underexposed shot) but I know that I like it. The "blue sand" is unusual but I like what I see. Beside, your composition is fine, this is a good photograph.

There is no such think as real photography as Sebastian said so well previously.

Seb