Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: David Eckels on February 14, 2013, 07:18:38 pm
-
Iconic Courthouse Rock, Sedona, AZ. Sunset obviously. Comments welcome.
-
I would vote yes on that question. Very nice.
-
Iconic Courthouse Rock, Sedona, AZ. Sunset obviously. Comments welcome.
This is nicely proportioned and framed with pleasant relationship between sky and ground. There's plenty to look at, and the gap between the tops (near the right) provides a nice breaking point in that line. In fact the right corner being closer, and with the green base, all together prevents boredom if it was all just the line of red rock. There's an interesting down streak in the sky - rain maybe, that adds a bit of texture. The exposure and other points of execution are refined and work perfectly.
I get nice feelings of exploration, expansiveness, adventure and the western vibe all around. No dark effects or dissonant bells for me.
For consideration: I question whether it is more color than in life. Not that there is any right amount of color saturation - but whether this puts the viewer in a suspicious mind set about reality. I think there is a fine line in photographs, landscapes in particular, between the photographer's truth in the image, and a "for bookstore calendars only" kind of plastic-coated aesthetic. Be sure - I am not calling a right and wrong here, it's a matter of taste. I am questioning aloud my own interpretation. I do know there would be a point (and I have found it in my own photographs first) where an over-amped reality doesn't work at all for me. After all, that's what photography does best is truth telling. I don't bring this up as a criticism so much as just raising the question for the photographer to consider. My best analogy at hand is that women's faces can range from totally natural, to slightly enhanced with make-up, to that point where everyone says, "Oh goodness - did you see her make-up!" And at that point, people begin to lose sight of what's underneath - which may be very valuable. In other words, you don't want a false surface to bury the gold that lies beneath.
And lastly, I am not registering any blacks in my read. I think a few points of zero might be more effective even than more color.
This is a strong landscape with very pleasant everythings about it. I really enjoyed pondering it.
-
RG, first, you're right, my histogram does not show any complete black, if this is what you mean. It's just almost black. I will play with that. I also take your point re over saturation. To my eye, raw images come out a bit flat, even after adjusting the histogram in ACR. Part of what I try to get at with the post is what I remember about the scene that caught my eye and adjusting towards that. We've all seen that late sunset light on red cliffs-magic-and reproducing it can easily go over the top. But I guess I am saying it is all very subjective. Like makeup ;) I like your analogy.
I also find intriguing your comment that "what photography does best is truth telling." That implies a philosophical intent. While I agree that photography is capable of truth telling, I wonder if that is, in fact, what it does best. Is it an artistic medium and where does "truth telling" blend into "artistic interpretation?" The truth is, I was trying to capture what I saw; I could take your comment to reflect that fact. But what I saw was subjective and I had to apply an artistic intepretation (Adams' performance, if you will indulge me) to achieve the intent, the mood, whatever you want to call it. Not trying to set up a false dichotomy or put words in your mouth. I will think some more about this.
I appreciate your very interesting reflections and I will ponder them. These discussions have been helping me see a little differently, step out of my own head, whatever. Even the curmudgeonly comments are instructive ;D I am also coming to appreciate how much all of us photographers struggle with the concept of, "Why What Works (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/why_what_works.shtml)" to go back to Michael Reichmann's essay from a few weeks ago. I am wondering if maybe not every photograph works for every viewer. Duh, Dave! Oh! :o And another thought: Does the fact that some shots don't "work" for every viewer, make one an unsuccessful photographer? Now I am navel gazing ::) and better stop!
This is why I love photography!
-
... Even the curmudgeonly comments are instructive...
OK then... cyan-ish sky? :P
-
I took the blacks down -15 and pushed the highlights +35 in LR4. Just to where they touched the lower and upper boundaries of the histogram. Subtle difference. Is it better? Not sure I would notice, especially once printed, but maybe you have a different view.
-
Slobodan--good point ;D I thought about that and kept coming back to thinking if I took out the aquas and blues too much I ended with more of a B/W sky. BTW, curmudgeonly--not. Thanks! It all helps.
Also, helps if I post the altered image per my previous comment blacks -15, highlights +35 in LR4.
-
RG, first, you're right, my histogram does not show any complete black, if this is what you mean. It's just almost black. I will play with that. I also take your point re over saturation. To my eye, raw images come out a bit flat, even after adjusting the histogram in ACR. Part of what I try to get at with the post is what I remember about the scene that caught my eye and adjusting towards that. We've all seen that late sunset light on red cliffs-magic-and reproducing it can easily go over the top. But I guess I am saying it is all very subjective. Like makeup ;) I like your analogy.
I also find intriguing your comment that "what photography does best is truth telling." That implies a philosophical intent. While I agree that photography is capable of truth telling, I wonder if that is, in fact, what it does best. Is it an artistic medium and where does "truth telling" blend into "artistic interpretation?" The truth is, I was trying to capture what I saw; I could take your comment to reflect that fact. But what I saw was subjective and I had to apply an artistic intepretation (Adams' performance, if you will indulge me) to achieve the intent, the mood, whatever you want to call it. Not trying to set up a false dichotomy or put words in your mouth. I will think some more about this.
I appreciate your very interesting reflections and I will ponder them. These discussions have been helping me see a little differently, step out of my own head, whatever. Even the curmudgeonly comments are instructive ;D I am also coming to appreciate how much all of us photographers struggle with the concept of, "Why What Works (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/why_what_works.shtml)" to go back to Michael Reichmann's essay from a few weeks ago. I am wondering if maybe not every photograph works for every viewer. Duh, Dave! Oh! :o And another thought: Does the fact that some shots don't "work" for every viewer, make one an unsuccessful photographer? Now I am navel gazing ::) and better stop!
This is why I love photography!
If I may say quickly---
It was just for your consideration....
No, all photographs will not work for all people, and that is not a negative reflection on the artist.
I'll say some more later. Have to run.
-
OK then... cyan-ish sky? :P
Ok. I took the blue down -20. Looks too gray to my eye. I think it's a touch thing. BTW, checked out your photos on your links. Terrific! But I can't resist: Green water in the Chicago River ;)
-
Senior moment! Again :-[
-
Ok. I took the blue down -20. Looks too gray to my eye. I think it's a touch thing. BTW, checked out your photos on your links. Terrific! But I can't resist: Green water in the Chicago River ;)
Not sure what you mean by "blue down -20." Saturation down? What I had in mind is to play with Hue sliders. Blue for instance. Then saturation may or may not need adjustment.
Chicago River green? You haven't heard of St. Patricks day, when they dye it green? :P
Just kidding, it wasn't taken that day. On the other hand, I never claimed "truthiness" for that image... it was extensively post-processed, intentionally.
-
RG, first, you're right, my histogram does not show any complete black, if this is what you mean. It's just almost black. I will play with that. I also take your point re over saturation. To my eye, raw images come out a bit flat, even after adjusting the histogram in ACR. Part of what I try to get at with the post is what I remember about the scene that caught my eye and adjusting towards that. We've all seen that late sunset light on red cliffs-magic-and reproducing it can easily go over the top. But I guess I am saying it is all very subjective. Like makeup ;) I like your analogy.
I also find intriguing your comment that "what photography does best is truth telling." That implies a philosophical intent. While I agree that photography is capable of truth telling, I wonder if that is, in fact, what it does best. Is it an artistic medium and where does "truth telling" blend into "artistic interpretation?" The truth is, I was trying to capture what I saw; I could take your comment to reflect that fact. But what I saw was subjective and I had to apply an artistic intepretation (Adams' performance, if you will indulge me) to achieve the intent, the mood, whatever you want to call it. Not trying to set up a false dichotomy or put words in your mouth. I will think some more about this.
I appreciate your very interesting reflections and I will ponder them. These discussions have been helping me see a little differently, step out of my own head, whatever. Even the curmudgeonly comments are instructive ;D I am also coming to appreciate how much all of us photographers struggle with the concept of, "Why What Works (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/why_what_works.shtml)" to go back to Michael Reichmann's essay from a few weeks ago. I am wondering if maybe not every photograph works for every viewer. Duh, Dave! Oh! :o And another thought: Does the fact that some shots don't "work" for every viewer, make one an unsuccessful photographer? Now I am navel gazing ::) and better stop!
This is why I love photography!
Loving photography is what it is all about.
I fear I may have misled you about the saturation comments. It wasn't intended to say I thought it was "too much." It was intended to say, "think about this aspect of it." For me there is a line where photos are so over-decorated on their surface ("make-up") that the underlying photograph - the bones underneath - is lost. Those photos don't work for me because they give up too much of the truth telling that sets photography apart from all other arts. You don't have to decorate over the surface, like a painter. If you want to paint, get a brush and canvas. This is one reason that many B&W photographs work so well. They are like x-rays seeing down to the bone of the subject. Of course it is philosophical. Art is visual philosophy.
Everyone viewing your photograph is bringing their own background and interests and prejudices and internal workings. It would be impossible for a photograph to appeal to everyone. Try to stay true as you can to your own interests and your integrity will show through in the final photograph. I always like to look for the photographer in the photograph. What is he/she revealing of themselves? The more they reveal, the more powerful the photo will be. (NOTE: photos taken expressly for sale to the general public (like calendars and such) are an entirely different matter all together, and I am not referring to those here. Totally different subject.)
I hope you have some more photographs to critique. And I sincerely hope you did not take my comments as any form of insult.
-
Not sure what you mean by "blue down -20." Saturation down? What I had in mind is to play with Hue sliders. Blue for instance. Then saturation may or may not need adjustment.
How about checking what happens when you move the White Balance slider a little to the warmer side? If it "over-cooks" the terrain, try doing it with a Graduated filter on the sky only? That sometimes works for me.
William
PS I like the picture - a lovely landscape with the light I always look for when I am out and about!
-
Hi,
I feel the image is OK. I also like it. Regarding cropping I feel it is a bit tight at the bottom, the image would be better balanced with a bit more mountain. Obviously I don't know what cropped out.
I don't really feel colors to be unnatural.
Best regards
Erik
-
I try to avoid sat/color sliders if possible and work more with blend modes when possible atop various intermediate types of contrast layers. I find it keeps the colors truer to their natural form yet allows a bit of pop where needed, ehanced contrast if needed or subtle variation as needed. I didn't think the colors in the sky were overly anything but did feel the sky lacked a bit of tonal variation.
Original
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8476496984_19d9711913_o.jpg)
Edit
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8231/8475390245_67d8969653_o.jpg)
-
I would like to ask the photographer, David: What was your intention in the photograph? What kinds of feelings or thoughts were you wanting to pass along?
For instance - - There are but two main elements in the photo. Each has a powerful, and yet very different influence on the communication. Is it about what the ground is saying, or is it about what the sky is saying? Which is dominant, if any? What's the intended relationship?
-
Fantastic feedback. Thanks.
RG-I get your point(s) and agree. There's a fine line. With over thirty years in biomedical research, I have pretty thick skin, but I have no formal training in art so I value these discussions enormously. BTW, I used the levels tool to add a full on black in some small areas; I think it does enhance the contrast a bit. I only brought the left slider up to 10. I also clipped the highlights down to 245. Overall, a subtle enhancement of contrast.
Slobodan-I thought about your comments all night! And I got to thinking about whether I had pushed up the blue and cyan saturation and sure enough, I had so I set both to zero. That shows in image 3 and includes the blacks and highlights adjustments above. This morning I saw your comment re the hue slider, which I have never used until now, so thanks for the thought! In image 4, I pushed the cyan hue slider to +10. I wouldn't call the difference subtle compared to the first image (I think most of the cyan cast is gone in 4), but I also didn't have that sense of "graying out" the sky. So I felt that this better reflected the scene as I remember it. I would never have thought to try the hue slider had you not mentioned it, so thanks! BTW, I've seen the green river and that's a lovely shot of Chicago.
William-I will keep that "trick" in mind. Like the hue slider, I often do not touch the temperature control and let the camera handle white balance.
Erik-Thanks. I was cropping out the homes of Sedona, but I often crop thusly, I guess 'cause I like an upward drawing interest, which the sky does for me.
Chrisc-I don't think I understand what you are saying from a "how to" point of view. I agree that the original sky needed some structural enhancement. If you would, please elaborate.
RG-I will get back to your question in a separate post.
All-Thanks so much for this discussion :)
-
RG-I will get back to your question in a separate post.
All-Thanks so much for this discussion :)
Ok David...I look forward to it.
-
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
-
God, Chris, my head is going to explode! Too early in the day for all those acronyms, percentages and generally nerdy stuff. :P
-
I would like to ask the photographer, David: What was your intention in the photograph? What kinds of feelings or thoughts were you wanting to pass along?
Fro instance - - There are but two main elements in the photo. Each has a powerful, and yet very different influence on the communication. Is it about what the ground is saying, or is it about what the sky is saying? Which is dominant, if any? What's the intended relationship?
It's hard to go to Sedona and not see eminently photographical scenes. Arizona Highways images abound, right? But I am mindful that Sedona is one of millions of places that have been photographed to death. How do you take a successful photo, that works and yet is unique under those conditions? That was what I was considering all week. The red rock icons are indeed powerful, but what I arrived at was the unique feature of the area was the sky and it was ever changing. Then you have those moments when the low angle of light causes the colors to pop. So my intention was to marry those features, the land, the sky, and the light. Cliche? The land is recognizable to anyone who has visited Sedona and so, in my view, really didn't need emphasis, but when those clouds started coming in before sunset I was getting excited because I wanted to show that juxtaposition of sky and land in that fantastic light, because to me, that's a tension that creates the magic of Sedona. Now a lot of this is reconstructionist reflection, but I think it is true. As I look back at the other frames from that trip, this is what I was trying to capture.
The comments and discussion here have been very helpful and I think it is important to "get it right" and like the old saying, the devil is in the details. I like the red, blue and green combinations you see so often in southwestern photographs. I wonder if that has anything to do with the RGB receptors we have in our retinas?
Anyway, hope this doesn't sound like BS. I appreciate your question making me think about these things as I am often "in the moment" and probably shoot very intuitively.
-
... curmudgeonly comments...
Hey! No swearing!
Seriously, for those of us whose English vocabulary mainly stems from watching dubious Benny Hills movies, what does that mean? :-)
-h
-
Hey! No swearing!
Seriously, for those of us whose English vocabulary mainly stems from watching dubious Benny Hills movies, what does that mean? :-)
-h
Me :P
-
In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.
I take it SEP and SEP2 are filters? I use CS6, too. I am with you on the luminosity blend and the despeckle, but I don't get the screen part. I could deconstruct this if Slobodan hasn't had enough coffee to stay in the discussion ;)
You guys are fantastic.
-
Hey! No swearing!
Seriously, for those of us whose English vocabulary mainly stems from watching dubious Benny Hills movies, what does that mean? :-)
-h
A crusty, ill tempered, usually old man (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curmudgeon). I like the crusty emphasis, because I is one.
-
I take it SEP and SEP2 are filters? I use CS6, too. I am with you on the luminosity blend and the despeckle, but I don't get the screen part. I could deconstruct this if Slobodan hasn't had enough coffee to stay in the discussion ;)
You guys are fantastic.
Sorry - Silver Efex Pro or Pro2. The SEP layer while giving more structure to the clouds and creating a better separation of tonal range, tended to go to dark in the shadows (underneath sides of the clouds). Duplicating this SEP layer with the blend set to screen (17% - low opacity) allowed the darker tones to retain their color but blend more evenly and lighten just enough to get (to me) a fuller luminence in the lighter areas of the clouds.
Poor Slobodan's head will really explode now.
-
A crusty, ill tempered, usually old man (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curmudgeon). I like the crusty emphasis, because I is one.
I can be ill tempered, but not that old...
I like your image, but on my non-calibrated macbook, the upper 1/3 (dark sky) seems somewhat noisy? posterized? Dirty? Not sure. Am I the only one thinking this?
-h
-
Sorry - Silver Efex Pro or Pro2. The SEP layer while giving more structure to the clouds and creating a better separation of tonal range, tended to go to dark in the shadows (underneath sides of the clouds). Duplicating this SEP layer with the blend set to screen (17% - low opacity) allowed the darker tones to retain their color but blend more evenly and lighten just enough to get (to me) a fuller luminence in the lighter areas of the clouds.
Poor Slobodan's head will really explode now.
AHHHH! I have used the luminosity technique with SEP2, but you're right, often the bottom of the clouds does go black. I will have to play with the screen adaptation to compensate. Very useful insight. Thanks!
-
I'm both...when asked how I am by some young sweety at the grocer, I generally answer, "tolerable."
-
It's hard to go to Sedona and not see eminently photographical scenes. Arizona Highways images abound, right? But I am mindful that Sedona is one of millions of places that have been photographed to death. How do you take a successful photo, that works and yet is unique under those conditions? That was what I was considering all week. The red rock icons are indeed powerful, but what I arrived at was the unique feature of the area was the sky and it was ever changing. Then you have those moments when the low angle of light causes the colors to pop. So my intention was to marry those features, the land, the sky, and the light. Cliche? The land is recognizable to anyone who has visited Sedona and so, in my view, really didn't need emphasis, but when those clouds started coming in before sunset I was getting excited because I wanted to show that juxtaposition of sky and land in that fantastic light, because to me, that's a tension that creates the magic of Sedona. Now a lot of this is reconstructionist reflection, but I think it is true. As I look back at the other frames from that trip, this is what I was trying to capture.
The comments and discussion here have been very helpful and I think it is important to "get it right" and like the old saying, the devil is in the details. I like the red, blue and green combinations you see so often in southwestern photographs. I wonder if that has anything to do with the RGB receptors we have in our retinas?
Anyway, hope this doesn't sound like BS. I appreciate your question making me think about these things as I am often "in the moment" and probably shoot very intuitively.
Be assured that such sincere discussion of photography is never BS.
First, as to specific adjustments of knobs and levers, I can't say. That's not my concern. I am happy enough to know that you will get them adjusted to suit you. My main concern was that you are getting your self into the photograph. Your values, your ideals, your feelings or whatever makes you pick up a camera. If you get a lot of YOU into it, it will all be fine in the end. That's what we all want to see - - the photographer's ideal! We have all seen the mountain, now we want to see YOU through the mountain.
Your explanation was excellent. We all have to "reconstruct" like that from time to time, so have no worry about that. And I got it very clearly. So now it's just to get that feeling expressed in the photo. Here's a thought. The rocks don't move, the sky does. We all might have seen that rock, but have any of us seen that sky? I don't mean a sky like it, I mean THAT sky. No, we haven't. So, you are going to show us how THAT sky worked against the land to give you THAT feeling. In this sense (being used as an example), maybe the rocks can be "under emphasized" subtly as the sky is over emphasized? This is more a feel than any specific advice to move a lever this way or that. You will know when you have it. I would have no way to know, because the truth of the moment is in you.
I wonder---do you print these (variations) out to look at as photographs, or do you only look at them on screen? This may not apply to you at all, but I HAVE to print the variations out to truly see them. I don't mean the final size if you intended it large. But to have a stack of photographs in hand that you can sit with, ponder, examine, critique AWAY from the computer can be very valuable. I print a lot of stuff at about 5 x 7, which is just right for sitting in my easy chair and thinking about them for a few days.
Thanks again for revealing your intention so clearly. It's a fun process and you have a wonderful photograph to play with.
-
I can be ill tempered, but not that old...
I like your image, but on my non-calibrated macbook, the upper 1/3 (dark sky) seems somewhat noisy? posterized? Dirty? Not sure. Am I the only one thinking this?
-h
I don't see posterization on my calibrated monitor, but now I'm worried ;) There is a graininess that is contributed (I think) by the SEP2 luminosity layer (see Chrisc's comments above) that I did not remove, but there is also some rain or downward streaks that are present in the raw image. At first they annoyed me, but then, they're real so I didn't diddle them out. Don't know if this is what you're seeing but you may not be the only one. Key part of the definition is "usually" old ;) ;)
-
I'm both...when asked how I am by some young sweety at the grocer, I generally answer, "tolerable."
LMAO
-
I wonder---do you print these (variations) out to look at as photographs, or do you only look at them on screen? This may not apply to you at all, but I HAVE to print the variations out to truly see them. I don't mean the final size if you intended it large. But to have a stack of photographs in hand that you can sit with, ponder, examine, critique AWAY from the computer can be very valuable. I print a lot of stuff at about 5 x 7, which is just right for sitting in my easy chair and thinking about them for a few days.
Thanks again for revealing your intention so clearly. It's a fun process and you have a wonderful photograph to play with.
Printing. That's a can of worms. Currently I do not print at home. I use a lab. I will have to see if there is a forum on printing, but honestly, I've been reluctant to get involved because it is itself an arcane art form.
I appreciate the challenging questions and the encouragement. Geez, I better go to work!
-
LMAO
The really irritating question I get is, "how are WE doing today." The other is when a waitress calls me sweety. Arrrgghhh, such bad form.
-
Printing. That's a can of worms. Currently I do not print at home. I use a lab. I will have to see if there is a forum on printing, but honestly, I've been reluctant to get involved because it is itself an arcane art form.
I appreciate the challenging questions and the encouragement. Geez, I better go to work!
I see. Well, maybe even a simple printer for "editing" purposes would be useful? I don't know how each person works. It was just a method to pass on as a suggestion.
-
I rather like it when very pretty waitstaff call me 'darling' and 'sweetheart'. It is one of the few perks of living south of the Mason Dixon line in the USA. The other one being, of course, barbecue.
-
... That's what we all want to see - - the photographer's ideal!...
Wait!?
I thought, according to you, everything and anything coming out of a camera is "just/only a photograph," "a truth all on its own," worth showing to the world.
"it's not 'about nothing' or 'about something," you said.
Now you are telling us it is, after all, about something: the photographer's idea!
How novel!
-
Slobodon, check your PM.
-
Wait!?
I thought, according to you, everything and anything coming out of a camera is "just/only a photograph," "a truth all on its own," worth showing to the world.
"it's not 'about nothing' or 'about something," you said.
Now you are telling us it is, after all, about something: the photographer's idea!
How novel!
Slob,
One of the things that often happens when people read for the purpose of finding an insult to make, instead of reading for the purpose of trying to get the writer's point, is that they make a fool of themselves for not having read carefully. When you swing for the fences, you kind of have to hit the ball, in other words.
You aren't about the photography, you are about the hounding of people to show you are some kind of "heavy weight" I think it was called. So, I have been generally ignoring you and Hef's and Grumpy's persistent attempts at diverting the forum into your locker room. I find it pathetic in general. I can only imagine it is about being starved for attention, in which case my prescription is, post some photographs, or in some way contribute something about photography.
Had you given even modest care to understand my point to the other poster about "only photographs," you would have read this sentence which I quote here:
"It means the product can be "the photograph" itself, of itself, and by itself with no named reference within. The 'thing' then, doesn't have to be a mountain, car, cabbie, door or dog, but it's "just a photograph." Neither does that mean it is "nothing." It is obviously something. " I bolded the "can be" for the obvious reason that "can be" doesn't mean "must be." Photographs can be many things, that was one of them. I feel comfortable with what I wrote and the intention behind it. I write fast though, and I try to be spontaneous. That means I will make mistakes from time to time, and I readily admit it. I might go through my own posts and find several right now. Usually, it's nothing serious. But I will say this, I don't write as though it is being engraved on a granite stone. Feel free though to spend your day looking through it to find whatever inconsistencies you enjoy. It's easier than taking photographs, that's for sure.
So let's be clear now. Do you see your important role here as being the one to pour over texts looking for some word to quibble about in an amazing "gotcha" moment?
-
You are completely wrong about Slobodan. Also, I have my suspicions about your usage of 'Slob' as a diminutive.
-
Slob,
One of the things that often happens when people read for the purpose of finding an insult to make...
You can say whatever you want about my posts, I generally believe in the "stick and stones...," but you just engaged in a personal and direct attack that I do not appreciate: you play games with my first name. You chose to shorten it into something that, in English language, means: "a lazy and slovenly person."
At least i post under my real name. What is yours?
-
In the interest of not having any misunderstanding here, "Slob" is shorthand, or an abbreviation for "SLOBODAN" - using simply the first four letters. In most responses to me in this forum, I was referred to as "RG" or often "GUY" and only perhaps on the rarest occasion "redwoodguy." I fully understood it was just a shorthand typing convention. Who cares, I don't.
I guess I could have typed "SLO" or "DAN" or "SLOBO" or "LOBO" in keeping with custom employed here by others. I bet each of those would bring the same complaint. I am no more interested to keep typing SLOBODAN, than others are interested in typing REDWOODGUY.
I really have to ask once more: What is your motivation here? Mine is showing and discussing photography, not pouring over posts looking for insults to the poster.
I am going to try it this way: Please go pester and hound and insult someone else.
-
Nice try.
Of all the possible variations of shortening, the simplest of which would be SB, my initials, just like people are shortening yours into RG, you chose the one that has a distinct, and negative meaning in English.
On the other hand, should you decide to introduce yourself under your real name, I would not have any problems in spelling it fully. Come to think of it, for someone whose tirades and critiques verge on a verbal diarrhea, you seem too bent on abbreviating names.
As for insults, let me see:
It was YOU who embarked on a hunt for "heavy weights" here, trying to dethrone alleged forum "royalties," smoke out "peacocks." It was YOU who called the rest "sheep," blindly following the former.
It was YOU who called Rob C "Mr. Hefner," and made allusions to his work as pornography. It was YOU who directly called others "rude, nasty and arrogant."
-
Again, what's your motivation here, and why are you hijacking this fellas thread for this nonsense?
-
He has an excellent question, Slobodan. What ARE you trying to do?
If you want RG to admit error, obviously that's never going to happen.
If you're trying to expose him as a fake intellectual, posturing like a clown, I think that's pretty well established already.
Perhaps you're just having fun, poking at the mangy beast with a stick, to see if it spits and hisses at you? That's fun for a bit, but ultimately cheapens you.
-
Gentlemen. Peace! Please! I have learned something from each of you. Thanks for that.
-
Gentlemen. Peace! Please! I have learned something from each of you. Thanks for that.
Ditto: Peace please, before having to push the 'close' button...
-
After a brief email discussion with Chris Sanderson, I have unlocked the thread. I was concerned that it was becoming a catalyst for some tough rhetoric that I was becoming uncomfortable with. Chalk it up to newbie nervousness, but I have been looking for a place to discuss and understand the issues that you all are so passionate about. It's not that I have very delicate sensibilities, I am just trying to understand the culture here and if the tremendous amount I have learned in a very brief time is any indication, I look forward to future dialogue. This thread may well be played out, but I just wanted you to know.
Best regards,
-
So, at the risk of being boring, I decided to rework this image from the original, cropped DNG. Sarting in LR4, all settings were set to default. If it isn't mentioned, the setting remains at LR4 default. I then moved to PS CS6. So here's the sequence following all the prior suggestions:
LR4:WB upped from 4900 (camera's choice) to 5500 (thanks W Walker), contrast +30, highlights, shadows, and whites all set to +75, blacks decreased to -35 (Thanks RG). This basically "spread" out the histogram. Red, orange, and yellow saturation were set to +35 and aqua HUE at +35. Sharpening settings were amount 50, radius 1, detail 50, masking 90. Noise reduction settings were luminance 50, detail 50, contrast 0, color 50, and detail 50. Nothing else was adjusted and then I edited in CS6.
CS6: First I spotted out some distracting mailboxes. High pass sharpening at 3 pixels was applied through a mask only to the earth. A SEP2 (full contrast and structure) layer was added with "luminosity" blend mode, 100% opacity/fill. Then I spotted out dust (just a couple). With a Hue Saturation layer, I bumped red saturation +20, yellow saturation +15 and lightness -5; all other settings were 0. I then applied unsharp mask (100, 0.8, 0) only to the earth (no sky). Then I signed it!
I think it addresses Slobodan's concern about the cyan overtones of the sky (Thanks SB). The SEP2 luminosity blend added tonal variations to the sky (Thanks, Chrisc). I appreciate all of your suggestions as I learned a couple new things and gained the perspective of seeing through your eyes.
-
Geez Dave! Can't you remember anything ;)
-
When I did my edit, I only limited myself to the sky, leaving the ground alone. I am close to saying the ground seems a bit oversaturated now.
-
Chrisc, yes I realize. The saturation could be easily remedied now. Appreciate the opinion. Maybe it'd fit in Arizona Highways ;)
-
My thoughts, exactly. :D
-
Well this new version is very different. How do you feel about it? Does it get to more of what you wanted?
-
Well this new version is very different. How do you feel about it? Does it get to more of what you wanted?
Honestly, I'm kinda wrung out with it. I do think it is a more "honest" representation, certainly in terms of the post processing. As an exercise, I wanted to go back to the original and incorporate what I'd picked up from the input from all of you. I am happy with the earth; that's what I remember. The sky is still too B/W for my taste, but it IS unmodified, except for the texture; it was not a flat sky, but the color is off. I could make it more blue, cyan, or even somewhat green due to the haze, but I've lost my frame of reference in some regard. I will "put it away" and come back to it later, I think.
-
Honestly, I'm kinda wrung out with it. I do think it is a more "honest" representation, certainly in terms of the post processing. As an exercise, I wanted to go back to the original and incorporate what I'd picked up from the input from all of you. I am happy with the earth; that's what I remember. The sky is still too B/W for my taste, but it IS unmodified, except for the texture; it was not a flat sky, but the color is off. I could make it more blue, cyan, or even somewhat green due to the haze, but I've lost my frame of reference in some regard. I will "put it away" and come back to it later, I think.
Good move. Sometimes you have to step back and relax a bit to regain your idea behind it. FYI, they both work for me, but they tell different stories, have different feelings to them. Go with your gut.
-
OK then... cyan-ish sky? :P
To close this one out, I wanted to post one last lesson that I learned. Sorry if this is getting tedious. Slobodan offered to make some tweaks to the image so that I could see how he might approach it, not just the cyan-ish sky, but all of it. In the off chance some other neophytes could learn from this, with Slobodan's permission, I am posting his process done entirely in LR4.3. I was not fully aware that LR was that powerful and have been "going to school" trying to discern SB's process. I will tell you that as I went back to the original cropped DNG, I was able to create the identical image after I'd fully deconstructed what he'd done. I know this is a bit technical, but it was an enormously informative exercise for me.
In the Develop module, moving top to bottom (if I don't mention it, it wasn't changed), WB tint was moved to +15. Exposure was increased to 0.6, contrast +63, shadows +50, whites +50, blacks -70. Hue blue +5, Saturation red +20, orange +20. Sharpening went to 60, 0.8, 100, and 40 (from 50, 1, 50, 90 defaults). Luminosity NR was reduced to 20.
After all this, I was VERY frustrated because my image didn't look like his! Was he keeping secrets from me, I pondered. Nay! I discovered something new: Graduated filters, which heretofore I had not realized existed. Similar to, but more powerful than the gradient tool in ACR. Slobodan first did a "top down" drag over the entire image with clarity increased to 100. Second, another top-down drag centered on the lower 1/4 of the sky with exposure -0.22, contrast +50, highlights +60, clarity +100, and saturation -20. Finally, a bottoms-up drag to about the lower 1/3 of the sky with temp +10. The first subtly increased contrast and detail with a little desaturation in the sky (dealt with the cyan-ish overtone of the OP). The last increased the warmth in the cliffs. And that was it!
Slobodan, thank you for the wonderful lesson and for being so generous with your time! Not so curmudgeonly after all ;).
-
And "mine" for comparison.
-
Hard to tell one from the other. Good working through a problem.
-
Sunset obviously.
To me, it doesn't actually seem like a sunset. The image works well on its own, so perhaps that is a "who cares"? But once you mentioned that the image was obviously a sunset, I found myself liking the image just a bit less.
Also, it seems just a bit tilted. Even if the horizon and plateau lines are actually horizontal, one of my early reactions was that the left side should be just a bit higher. Maybe I'm just naturally tipsy?