Backlit Ridge Line

[Todd Suttles]

Any suggestions oh how to improve the processing on this one would be appreciated. This is the best I could come up with what I know. Thanks in advance, -t

[RSL]

First thing would be to get rid of the toning.

[Todd Suttles]

First thing would be to get rid of the toning.

Thanks Russ. I know it is frustrating to you guys to have someone like me posting in here. I DO appreciate your taking your time to help me.
I started over, left out the split tone. What else?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

The main additional things I can see that you might try would be to make the sky either lighter or darker (when converting from color). But if you make the sky lighter, the backlit tree branches won't stand out as well as they do now, and if you make the sky darker, it will obscure the small tree on the ridge line.

So I think you've got it about right now (without the toning).

[RSL]

I think it's about as good as it's going to get, but much as I hate to say it, Todd, I'm not sure what you were after.

[Todd Suttles]

I think it's about as good as it's going to get, but much as I hate to say it, Todd, I'm not sure what you were after.

Thanks Russ, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. I don't want to be "toasting any more turds" than I have to. What I liked about the image when I took it, and was trying to capture/communicate was composition and light. I liked the view from the underneath perspective, the branches creeping into the shy wrapping around the little shrub, and the LIGHT from behind - at the scene - was magnificent. In person, "it" was there and I know "it" isn't there in the photograph. I guess it was  the sense of the hand of God you wrote about in another post somewhere. I read all your commentary that I can find and very much appreciate your taking the time to give so much. All that being said, I guess a part of me thinks that if I can just learn enough technique (LR & PS) I will be able to re-create what I felt and saw at the point of capture. Since I most certainly have learned a lot technical PP here since I started (yes, I know I am still very amateur) I guess the take-a-way is that I should spend more energy working on the seeing and culling than on the PP "tricks". Every mother thinks her baby is beautiful, I need to work on my that's one ugly baby muscles. Thanks... on to the next mistake

[David Eckels]

Hi Todd,
I think you're headed in the right direction. I have been learning a lot about the fact that there's a time and place for PP, everything else coming together. That's is a critical caveat. From what I have seen in you photos, FWIW, you might consider working a scene more fully in camera, until you get something that is close to what you see with your eyes and mind. Funny how subtle changes in perspective change the image. I remember an image of a road I posted here: I must have shot 30 frames of the same thing with subtle changes until I got the one that looked "right;" it didn't need but a few tweaks in PP. I don't know about your above image either, but I'd trust the comments; these folks have helped me tremendously. One of the things I learned is that none of the photographers here can help you see what you saw. You have to have the sense of vision and work towards that. Your last comment gets there, but you should be able to determine whether the capture is true to what you saw, or not. If the latter, keep working with it if you think it is worthy. I'm not talking about PP, I am talking about seeing and getting your camera to record it. I have had many images that needed some PP optimization; others it was just the composition. In that regard, since I have no formal art/photography training, Slobodan recommended several books for me; they were excellent and I will see if I can find that reference. Also, Russ will say a lot, study the masters; analyze what they have done with an image. It's almost certain to say that they didn't futz with it after the fact in PP because it was so damn hard with film. I understand the US Treasury teaches agents to recognize counterfeits by teaching recruits about the genuine article until they are INTIMATELY familiar. If we get a so-so image, no amount of PP will make it into a silk purse. I commend your honesty. Stick with it and you'll gain some very valuable nuggets here; try to keep in mind a specific question viz a specific image rather than an open-ended what do you think? Anyway, keep at it; somebody said after about 10K images you start to get a sense of what your vision is so persistence is key. I'm still working on that: 8194
Sorry for the epistle. Best,

[RSL]

Hi Todd, David hit a bunch of nails on the head. The biggest nail: If it's not right in the camera it's probably never going to be right after PP.

I think you're doing very well. You've posted some fine pictures, and I'm sure you'll do more fine ones. But one thing I think it takes most of us -- certainly it took me -- a long time to understand is that what looks great with the naked eye often won't make a good picture. Most days when I walk down the street or down our local river I see things that make me lift the camera. . . until I realize there's not really anything I can do with what I'm seeing as a picture. I think Garry Winogrand put his finger on something really important when he said: "I photograph things to see what they look like as photographs." To me the corollary is this: Until you've seen what a lot of things look like as photographs you don't really understand what will look good as a photograph and what won't.

I see what you were trying to do with this picture, and now that you've told me what you saw, I certainly can understand why you made the shot. But it turns out that this is one of those images that just won't convert to a photograph.

Keep shooting and as Churchill said, "Never, never, never give up."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Slobodan recommended several books for me; they were excellent and I will see if I can find that reference...

There are three books I can not recommend strongly enough (two of which have nothing to do with photography, yet are highly useful for photographers):

1. Perception and Imaging: Photography--A Way of Seeing - my bible.

2. Pictorial Composition

3. Picture This: How Pictures Work - WARNING: Do not let anyone see you reading this book, they might think you regressed to a kindergarten level

EDIT: I should perhaps reverse the order: start with the #3, as it is the simplest and shortest (about 100 pages, mostly illustrated), then go to #2 (also about 100 pages, well illustrated) and then go for #1, the 400+ pages behemoth, though also well illustrated). Starting with #1 might be overwhelming.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Todd, that's a decent image.

Original toning might be over the top, but I often warm-tone my images as well. My personal split-toning recipe in LR is 48/48 hue and 2/4 saturation for highlights/shadows respectively. LensWorks uses slightly more reddish and more saturated 40/40, 10/10, which I sometime use as well, but not too often (see my Wildlife From the Street post for an example where it actually worked rather well)

Compositionally, you might have moved at the moment of capture a little bit as to separate the central, darker tree from the tree on the right, but even as-is is not a cardinal crime.

As Eric suggested, you might want to darken the sky a bit, avoiding blending it with the darker tree. You also might want to add a ND grad filter (in LR) to the bottom of the image, darkening the ridge.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Pay attention to David and Russ and Slobodan, Todd.

Over the years I have shot many scenes where the light was absolutely magical, only to discover that I had failed to capture the sense of it in a photograph. Sometimes it actually works, so do keep on trying.

[David Eckels]

Thanks, Slobodan. All are excellent in their own special way, Todd. I have been going through Perception and Imaging, one little section by one little section, pondering ponderously as I go  There's a ton of meat there!

[Todd Suttles]

THANKS DAVID, ERIC, RUSS AND SLOBODAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Todd Suttles]

THANKS DAVID, ERIC, SLOBODAN AND RUSS!!
I appreciate all the help and direction, and I will use it; can't wait to get those books. You have no idea how much I appreciate your taking the time to help me. Everything you say always helps make things clearer to me.
-t
PS sorry for the lapse in reply, unfortunately I have to do my "day job" during the week 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Glad to help, Todd.

I should perhaps reverse the order of my book recommendation: start with the #3, as it is the simplest and shortest (about 100 pages, mostly illustrated), then go to #2 (also about 100 pages, well illustrated) and then go for #1, the 400+ pages behemoth, though also well illustrated). Starting with #1 might be overwhelming.

[cjogo]

I'm in accordance with many here  ....you didn't catch what you were trying to convey.  It was all there :: you just needed to move and compose differently .  I am way old school > shoot in the camera > never even think about post-processing .  Rarely shoot more than one exposure~~ of any image...too many years on film =will do that to you :-)

[luxborealis]

I'm sure everyone realizes, there is about $1200 worth of workshop help (albeit without the hands-on) in just this series of posts. What a treasure trove for all of us.

[Todd Suttles]

I'm sure everyone realizes, there is about $1200 worth of workshop help (albeit without the hands-on) in just this series of posts. What a treasure trove for all of us.

Much, much more... many lifetimes of experience, passion and love of the art -not to mention all the practice to perfect. I for one intend to honor and respect the gift by, to the best of my ability, following through with the actions and instructions suggested. My appreciation again to everyone who posts here.
-t