Somewhere near Caineville, Ut

[Lonnie Utah]

Lonnie, did you selectively brighten the trees in the foreground? How did you edit this image?

Sorry for the delay in answering this.  I checked the file and, no, I did not lighten the foreground trees.  In fact I slightly darkened (0.2 of a step) the gray/green sagebrush in the foreground (I'm sure to highlight the foliage without making those colors go out of gamut (which is very easy to do if you aren't careful.))  That brush also added contrast and sharpness.

I used two other adjustment brushes as well. One was localized mostly on the shadow areas on the midground mesa. I slightly brightened those areas. (about 1/3 of a step).  While I know some folks are big on punching in a lot of fill light to bring up shadow detail, I'm leery of doing that because of the amount of noise that that technique introduces into those areas.  Personally, I'd rather those areas be a little dark, with less noise than brighter and noisy.  

The final brush I used was a contrast/sharpness/clarity bump in the background mesa.  As everyone knows, shooting distant features at this time of day can lead to some wicked haze even in the least polluted landscapes.  I find adding localized contrast/sharpness/clarity helps reduce that effect. While there is definitely a haze in this image, I personally think it's pretty well controlled given the challenges of shooting at that time of day (1 PM MDT) under full sun at an oblique angle to the camera.

Chuck suggested using a curves layer adjustment to increase the overall brightness of the image. While I have certainty done this in the past and keep that tool in my toolbox, I find it a rather clumsy tool unless the whole image is woefully underexposed/overexposed. The problem for me is that curves and levels make global adjustments to the image where very often we only need local adjustments. To make levels and curves work correctly if you don't want to apply the changes to the entire image, you have to apply multiple layer masks with each one having a specialize curve or layer settings to get a final image where you wanted it. Personally, I find it much easier just to do the modifications by painting in the particular "zones" in my raw files and making adjustments to those areas based on what I perceive as deficiencies (lack of contrast/exporsure/lack of sharpness, etc, etc, etc). Unless I totally blow the image capture phase, my edits per image generally take less than 5 mins, 10 mins max. OF course I don't do "goofy" things like HDR, or blending exposures, etc, etc.

[Superka]

smth wrong with your Horizon?

[Lonnie Utah]

smth wrong with your Horizon?

I dunno. What are you thinking?

[BAB]

Lonnie
great image reminds me of a old John Wayne movie you look at it and its gives you the feeling of being there first and saying to yourself wow this is a great valley to maybe build a house.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Yes, and it's very, very, very bad form to edit someones image without their permission.. Yes, you've very much touched a never with me, not in the comments, but it altering MY art. And yes, I feel that altering and re-posting my work IS copyright infringement.

My goodness..

Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.

Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!

So while I agree that it would have perhaps been better for Churly to request your permission before editing the uploaded version of your image, I think you are peeing into the wind if you think you have any lawful redress against anyone who does whatever they like with your uploaded images on any site on the net, unless they use them to make money from of course, then you might stand a chance - if you can afford the lawyers and the court time etc.

Because this I am afraid, is the way of the modern world and if this is not something you feel you can live with, then the only other sure fire way to control the copyrighted use of your work, is to not to show it in any way shape or form anywhere on the net.

I have lots of images that I sell commercially that I don't upload here or anywhere else for that matter, but some images I do show here and elsewhere and I also realise that by doing so, I have probably lost all the rights to that particular version of the image, so I make it low res and have a small logo in the bottom.

I recently had what I can only call a fan, talking to me, who then proceeded to show me a slide show of most of my images that I had ever uploaded to various internet sites on their iPhone - yes it was a bit spooky.

I am not trying to provoke you into an argument, as there really is no argument, just trying to say chill out and get used to it. I imagine everyone who posts images here had to go through the same thing when learning to let go and I am sure Churly had only the best of intentions in mind when he did what he did.

Good shot BTW  

Dave

[Mjollnir]

My goodness..

Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.

Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!

If anyone is using that lawyer, I'd suggest punting him/her w/out a second thought.  My wife works in copyright law and IP here in Los Angeles.

The granting of rights to other parties is wholly dependent upon the terms of service of each, individual site, and unless it's specifically stated that you're giving up rights (and you agree to this) you're not giving up any rights.

The act of simply posting a shot to the Internet does NOT grant license to ANY party unless specifically addressed in the TOS.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

My impression is, that the TOS are there to protect the site management, not individuals using the site from other individuals using the site.

[Lonnie Utah]

My goodness..

Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.

Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!

I'm sorry, but that's simply not accurate. Since the image was posted on MY OWN site and I simply re-posted a link to the image here, I have not and did not forfeit my rights via a third party's TOC's.  

The granting of rights to other parties is wholly dependent upon the terms of service of each, individual site, and unless it's specifically stated that you're giving up rights (and you agree to this) you're not giving up any rights.

The act of simply posting a shot to the Internet does NOT grant license to ANY party unless specifically addressed in the TOS.

^^^ This.  This is why I never DIRECTLY post that sort of image to FB, twitter or instagram (etc).  The SMART photographer knows what the TOS/TOC's for those sites say and only posts a LINK to their page where the image can be found. That way, the actual image never resides on their servers and as a result the rights never transfer to those services. Do I lose some views and click because of my "refusal" to do this? Yes, I'm sure of it. Are those few lost clicks worth it to retain control of my images? Yes, 100%.

It's called being business and net savvy in today's image sharing environment.