Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: berg  (Read 627 times)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
berg
« on: April 13, 2018, 02:49:19 pm »

Don't look, Russ! It's another berg!

Anyone else, please comment  ;)

Jeremy
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: berg
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2018, 03:07:28 pm »

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: berg
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2018, 04:29:38 pm »

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.
I agree with Slobodan.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13791
Re: berg
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2018, 10:27:42 am »

Also have to agree. The rays are visible in the thumbnail but not (or not that much) in the larger image.
Spend a bit more time in PP and you'll have another stunning shot.
Logged
Francois

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: berg
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2018, 11:00:02 am »

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.

Fair point. It was the "rays" which attracted me to the shot, and they aren't as apparent in this JPEG as they seemed to me on my Mac.

Here's a somewhat more "worked" version. I don't think it's overdone.

Jeremy
Logged

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3528
  • It's just a camera.
    • Website
Re: berg
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2018, 12:09:56 pm »

I really like where you went with that, Jeremy. That being said, if it was me, I'd crop to a 2:1 AR to remove some of the sea at the bottom. If it was me, but then it isn't!

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: berg
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2018, 02:38:11 pm »

Much better in the new version.

As for cropping the bottom, you might want to ask Russ for advice.   ;)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: berg
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2018, 04:05:31 am »

I really like where you went with that, Jeremy. That being said, if it was me, I'd crop to a 2:1 AR to remove some of the sea at the bottom. If it was me, but then it isn't!

Thanks, David, but I like the blue in the water too much to lose it.

Jeremy
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up