Orton & Cloud Dodging

[AlterEgo]

Murph asked how to make the shots more natural looking, so why not cut the snark and be helpful instead of immature dicks.

how do you explain when the OP posts these images and says "that things are moving just a touch past natural looking, and into the realm of HDR or digital manipulation." - you can't argue about the taste here or definition what "a touch" is... I'd say that is an intentional move a lot past natural looking and you certainly consider this to be like the OP "a touch"...

as for the halos those are when the skies are near the ground = may be just simple use something like Topaz Remask to separate the skies into a different layer and apply HDR there, w/o ground present at all...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Murph asked how to make the shots more natural looking, so why not ... be helpful..."

Because it might fall under "aiding and abetting" category? 

[maddogmurph]

I've attached the out of the camera rendering of the JPG.  Obviously very drab and dull.  I've also attached the RAW conversion for this particular photo which is pushing the photograph hard.  This isn't my normal workflow, this is an experiment.  Basically I'm learning new techniques so I know when to apply them to my more realistic processing.  The sharpening is 80, with a mask at 80, luminescence at 24 with color bumped to 45, I've adjusted curves, and added darkness to clouds using spot adjustments.  I've also done some color shifting, some increasing and decreasing of the saturation of specific colors.  Down blue, up red/orange, etc... Then you've seen the edit after adding orton, dodging, masks, etc. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Then you've seen the edit after adding orton, dodging, masks, etc.  

You could have stopped right before that (and perhaps back off just a bit).

[BobDavid]

I've attached the out of the camera rendering of the JPG.  Obviously very drab and dull.  I've also attached the RAW conversion for this particular photo which is pushing the photograph hard.  This isn't my normal workflow, this is an experiment.  Basically I'm learning new techniques so I know when to apply them to my more realistic processing.  The sharpening is 80, with a mask at 80, luminescence at 24 with color bumped to 45, I've adjusted curves, and added darkness to clouds using spot adjustments.  I've also done some color shifting, some increasing and decreasing of the saturation of specific colors.  Down blue, up red/orange, etc... Then you've seen the edit after adding orton, dodging, masks, etc. 

I hope you are not discouraged by some of the things folks have written in response to your OP. I think you are onto something---try making adjustments that are more conservative. And gradually build up the effect. You may be pushing too many adjustments to the extreme on the first pass. Think of processing the RAW five or six different ways. Then copy and paste one of the flattened tiff photos onto another tiff file and play around with blending modes. Maybe start off with just trying to perfect one picture. Even if it takes 40 hours, you might run into some accidental discoveries that will lead you to the right path. Keep experimenting.

[Diego Pigozzo]

...
one is the halo effect that I sometimes get when blending.  I'm thinking luminosity masks are the solution, but I don't quite have the mastery of knowing how to select a single object using luminosity masks.

I'm not sure there is a way to cope "more or less automatically" with the halo: you'll probably have to resort to manual correction with some dodge/burn mask of some sort.
(In GIMP I would use an overlay layer and paint black with low opacity on the halo).

And the second gripe is that things are moving just a touch past natural looking, and into the realm of HDR or digital manipulation.  I'm not opposed to this but my goal is to make the image look natural but have an enhanced feel at the same time.

I would try to explore various "saturation/contrast/detail" settings, both global and local: from what I see in your photos, the impression you get may be due to too much saturation and details.

That said, I have to say I like your photos, especially Mini Volcano e Desert Storm, and I think they're not so far from what you're trying to achieve (at least for my taste).
The acid colors talk me more of an oniric experience than a straight landscape.

[BAB]

Try some third party plugins for ex nik and use the filters lightly when you get the look your going for save all the setting as a recipe so you can use them as a starting point for your next image. By choosing a recipe and applying it to a image instead of building each step sometimes certain things jump out at you right away that you don't like. With this method and some learn experience you are able to tweet images to the point of not real but not fake. I might also suggest you try to get more dynamic range from multiple exposures if the example you posted is the final look your after.

Also don't get discouraged if some images don't work it will happen that way your job is to figure out why and how to shoot it right.

[Rainer SLP]

I've attached the out of the camera rendering of the JPG.  Obviously very drab and dull.  I've also attached the RAW conversion for this particular photo which is pushing the photograph hard.  This isn't my normal workflow, this is an experiment.  Basically I'm learning new techniques so I know when to apply them to my more realistic processing.  The sharpening is 80, with a mask at 80, luminescence at 24 with color bumped to 45, I've adjusted curves, and added darkness to clouds using spot adjustments.  I've also done some color shifting, some increasing and decreasing of the saturation of specific colors.  Down blue, up red/orange, etc... Then you've seen the edit after adding orton, dodging, masks, etc.  

Hi,

If I look at your original image for me it is too dark. As far as I have read and learned in digital one should shoot in that way that the histogram is as far as possible to the right taking care not to burn out some whites.

Looking at your images the question here is as many others said how far do you want to take away the reality of the image in question. My personal taste does not go in that direction. Too much whipped cream on the cake.

I like more images with a natural looking which does not mean that a bit of darkening, adding contrast, brightening some dark areas and adding a bit of sharpness are allowed.

Somebody already mentioned to make more variants for yourself and compare them would be good.

I never use a RAW converter for adding changes. I prefer to import my RAWs with as less as possible changes and work out the images either in PS or in C1 which for me are better and more accurate then a simple RAW converter.

Maybe a idea of getting suggestions would be to allow the members here access to the RAW file and the interested ones could process your image according of how they would like it and so you will see the different possibilities ¿?

[BernardLanguillier]

Considering the nature of the changes you are doing, I think that pixel exact masks are mandatory for some of the masked adjustements you are applying.

As far as natural look goes, I have to agree that these feel extremely far from natural to my eyes. But that's totally your artistic right of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Considering the nature of the changes you are doing, I think that pixel exact masks are mandatory for some of the masked adjustements you are applying.

Either that, or better software ...

In general, and also for clouds, I find Topaz Labs Clarity to be a real game changer. Of course there has to be some detail in clouds to begin with, so the whole exercise starts with a good Raw conversion. That means pulling back a lot on the highlight control in ACR/LR conversions (which by default compresses the life out of highlights).

TL Clarity uses halo-free local contrast adjustments, and avoids perceptual color shifts with changed brightness. It also has very effective (edge-aware or color-aware) masking abilities if the adjustments must be confined to certain areas of the image.

Cheers,
Bart

[brandtb]

I think the difference between your raw and your processed image is not that unusual...for most still photographers it would be of course (and not suggesting that is always the course to take in initial capture). I assume these are 14 bit uncompressed raw files from the D810? If you looked at a "log c" raw file from say a Arri Alexa camera and then it's final correction from Scorcese's "Hugo" for example...it is nearly the same in scope. I think the images, particularly Desert Storm are very nice...and Mini-Volcano second (minus halos). I would suggest printing these too to live with them a bit as you progress on this path...this would be helpful in determining how much saturation is too much. There may be some points where the intensity of a chroma overides any one of a number of "subject elements" in the frame...and that might not be what you want. Lastly, "verisimilitude" is not the only worthy or primary goal in photography, otherwise there wouldn't be so many "black and white" photographs throughout its history...

[Rajan Parrikar]

Are any of you aware of any luminosity mask tutorials or workflows that you'd recommend?

http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

Kuyper also sells Photoshop actions for Luminosity Masks.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

Kuyper also sells Photoshop actions for Luminosity Masks.

Somehow I can't imagine Rajan Ortonizing any of his photos. 

[Rajan Parrikar]

Somehow I can't imagine Rajan Ortonizing any of his photos. 

But Kuyper's luminosity masks are very useful even if one has no use for the Orton technique.

[luxborealis]

Maddog - You are at your best when you are creative like this. These are spectacular, not only because of their uniqueness, but also because of the creative thinking that took you from reality to this other reality.

Great work - thanks for sharing.

[jjj]

If I look at your original image for me it is too dark. As far as I have read and learned in digital one should shoot in that way that the histogram is as far as possible to the right taking care not to burn out some whites.

A view shared by some, however not by all. The 'perfect exposure' may not be the 'correct exposure', unless doing forensic work.

I never use a RAW converter for adding changes. I prefer to import my RAWs with as less as possible changes and work out the images either in PS or in C1 which for me are better and more accurate then a simple RAW converter.

Why even bother shooting raw then, you may as well shoot jpeg? You also seem to be completely missing the point of how good and how powerful a raw workflow is. Describing LR/ACR/C1 etc as a simple convertor is like describing Photoshop as a basic retouching tool. 

Maybe a idea of getting suggestions would be to allow the members here access to the RAW file and the interested ones could process your image according of how they would like it and so you will see the different possibilities ¿?

This is a good idea.