Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: David Eckels on February 29, 2016, 01:37:37 pm
-
From DV
-
No!?
Who painted the background blue then? ;)
-
No hand, but I think I see some footprints! ;)
Nice image, the background may be a little too blue but it does offer nice color contrast with the foreground.
-
Who painted the background blue then? ;)
Actually, I was sucking the blue saturation out both pre- and post-processing. Not sure why it was so intense, maybe distance compression, angle to the sun, maybe magic, maybe I just f'd up :D
Matt: I looked very carefully, not footprints, Yetti ;)
Update: Happy now? ;)
-
What color is it supposed to be? One of the things I've found that helps me when I have this problem in my images is a luminosity mask blend. I take a darks 3 or 4 selection, turn the original photo black and white, then blend the black and white photographs shadows into the original color photo. It still has the hue that was naturally there when I took the shot, but for some reason bringing in the dark blacks really helps make it look more color balanced.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130403473@N07/19941283734/in/dateposted-public/
That's an example. I had a heavy blue hue to this image like your background as it was shot during twilight. In fact the original color was nearly only blue at varying shades. I masked the highlights and the shadows to try to bring back true color. Mostly an experiment on my part.
-
That's an example. I had a heavy blue hue to this image...
Terrific image. Thanks for the idea; I will give it a whack. When I look at yours on my recently calibrated monitor, I get a magenta cast. I suppose the calibration could be off or for some reason my sensitivity to blue is muted. Slobodan would probably agree LOL. But when you mention "true color" now we're getting philosophical ;) My raw files are so far off of what I think I see that I am really reinterpreting the shot; maybe THAT's the problem! :)
Update: Very interesting. Measured the ratios of RGB in the "original" NEF R/G values in the dark, dark shadows, they were approximately equal and half that of the B value. The second image I posted above had similar R/G values, but they were one-fourth of the B value, so I just took the blue saturation down until R/G were about half of B. Didn't realize I could use these measurements that way! See adjusted image below.
-
Actually, I was sucking the blue saturation out both pre- and post-processing. Not sure why it was so intense, maybe distance compression, angle to the sun, maybe magic, maybe I just f'd up :D
Matt: I looked very carefully, not footprints, Yetti ;)
Update: Happy now? ;)
I've had images do that too. I think sometimes the conditions just make for a very blue hue that makes a photo look less believable, even if that blue is real!
Don't Yeti have feet? ;)
-
I am genuinely intrigued. The front appears as broad daylight, the background as deep twilight? I know deep shadows in daylight are bluish (hence the UV filters), but I do not ever remember that intensely blue.
Now, do not get me wrong, I visually prefer #1 version (with a tweak or two), very graphic, even if lacking in believability. The third one, as much as it might be natural, is... lifeless.
-
Actually, I was sucking the blue saturation out both pre- and post-processing. Not sure why it was so intense, maybe distance compression, angle to the sun, maybe magic, maybe I just f'd up :D
Matt: I looked very carefully, not footprints, Yetti ;)
Update: Happy now? ;)
David,
This is a beautiful photograph. No apologies necessary for the blue or the Yeti tracks.
Terry
-
I am genuinely intrigued. The front appears as broad daylight, the background as deep twilight? I know deep shadows in daylight are bluish (hence the UV filters), but I do not ever remember that intensely blue.
Now, do not get me wrong, I visually prefer #1 version (with a tweak or two), very graphic, even if lacking in believability. The third one, as much as it might be natural, is... lifeless.
I probably should have posted this in "User Critiques" but oh well. That's a very interesting comment, Slobodan (as is usual ;) ) It was about 3:30 in the afternoon, not broad daylight and not deep twilight. I suspect the relative slopes of the mountains and dunes vs the sun's angle is why although I do confess to enhancing that difference some, also the mountains in the background are certainly much darker in color (and steeper) than the dunes. The bluish tinge was clearly an artefact of my processing even though in both of the first images I was reducing blue saturation right and left (mostly left ;) slider direction, get it?) Your other point is great for me to think about. Here's a question with a preface. Blue and yellow are complementary, so is the "life" you perceive in the first one a result of the dynamic between the two?
-
... Here's a question with a preface. Blue and yellow are complementary, so is the "life" you perceive in the first one a result of the dynamic between the two?
I would say so. The word "graphic" implies strong, saturated colors, both of which are associated with vigorous life.
-
I live the image! I think it would render well as mono but this will work!
Mark
-
From DV
very clear, separated and pleasurable colours, excellent composition and (as we can see at these dimensions) very good sharpness.
All the best,
sandro