yaki layers

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think I like this one. Anyone else?

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yep.

[32BT]

I like it enough to b@tch about the haloing. Unusual shapes in the ridges btw. Nice how that is definitely characteristic for the locale.

[RSL]

Very nice, Jeremy. I don't see haloes.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Very nice, Jeremy. I don't see haloes.

+1.

[graeme]

Lovely. Well done.

[stamper]

I don't see haloes either. An image with great depth. Well done.

[32BT]

You can get away with the horizontal haloing since that just looks like the mist and emphasises the layering which is the primary interest of the image, but in my country mist doesn't magically follow the shape of mountainridges. YMMV

[stamper]

You can get away with the horizontal haloing since that just looks like the mist and emphasises the layering which is the primary interest of the image, but in my country mist doesn't magically follow the shape of mountainridges. YMMV

I see the effect you are referring to but imo it isn't called haloes. Haloes are generally a couple of pixels wide caused by excessive sharpening???

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I see the effect you are referring to but imo it isn't called haloes. Haloes are generally a couple of pixels wide caused by excessive sharpening???

And it is sharpening, just a special kind of, known these days as "clarity," i.e., sharpening with a large radius.

My solution to those artifacts is a brush with a negative Clarity.

[RSL]

I think Slobodan has the right idea. But even if you don't touch the thing, unless you're going to make a wall-sized print it's not going to be a big deal. The average person isn't going to notice the problem. Only a died-in-the-wool pixel peeper is going to be upset by it.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks, all.

The terminology might have been confusing, but I think the "haloing" point is a fair one, at least as regards the lower right. How about this?

Jeremy

[riverrat373]

I love the feeling of depth!

[luxborealis]

This seems like amuch stronger photograph than the yaki tree.

I think Slobodan has the right idea. But even if you don't touch the thing, unless you're going to make a wall-sized print it's not going to be a big deal. The average person isn't going to notice the problem. Only a died-in-the-wool pixel peeper is going to be upset by it.

I agree with Russ about the halos. Sometimes we over-analyze based on our knowledge of photography and processing and forget that consumers are mostly oblivious(not that that's an excuse for not paying attention to details!)

[pcgpcg]

While there appears to be some pronounced "haloing" (due to use of clarity in processing I'm guessing) around the trees, the other pronounced contrast between layers does not seem to me to be as much of a processing artifact as it is a natural occurrence, and perhaps maybe to some extent an optical illusion.

I went out yesterday evening to look at the "layering" in the Oregon coast range visible to the west of my house and the same effect was apparent to the naked eye. That is, if you pick one of the "layers", it appears that brightness goes from light to darker as your eye travels up to the top edge of a mountain range. The top edges of mountains appear darker than below, and the bottom of the next mountain immediately above and farther away is lighter than the top of the same mountain.

It is not just that the farther away mountains are lighter in brightness, but there is also a light to dark effect going on from top to bottom on each mountain. I'm guessing this is simply due to moisture and dust settling in the atmosphere - haze thickens at lower elevations.

Nice photo!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the same effect was apparent to the naked eye. That is, if you pick one of the "layers", it appears that brightness goes from light to darker as your eye travels up to the top edge of a mountain range. The top edges of mountains appear darker than below...

Human perception, Gestalt principle of contrast:

[RSL]

Exactly!