Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: David Eckels on August 25, 2013, 10:10:13 am
-
Going up the Danube (thanks Slobodan!) somewhere near the Hungarian border. I will try to find the name. CC welcome.
Update: Esztergom
-
Going up the Danube (thanks Slobodan!) somewhere near the Hungarian border. I will try to find the name. CC welcome.
Update: Esztergom
Assuming you didn't crop - wonderful choice of focal length; fits the shapes perfectly to give a great balance.
Rob C
-
Perfect. I like it. Hope the very best for your journey. How long are you going to stay in Europe?
Harald
-
Rob, thanks, no cropping (I did it, Russ!) and the afternoon light was, again, amazing. That means a lot coming from you.
Harald, thanks. We came home July 31. Still processing and culling 2700 images! Had a great time and will return soon.
-
Very nice photo! Everything is cooperating, clouds/sky, vegetation and buildings…
Did you shoot from a boat?
-
Did you shoot from a boat?
Yes. Came around a bend and there she was!
-
This is a nice travel shot that will be a great memory in a travel log or album. It isn't anywhere near as interesting or artistic as your graffiti doorway. Looks a little soft to me--maybe noise reduction, I don't know.
-
This is a nice travel shot that will be a great memory in a travel log or album. It isn't anywhere near as interesting or artistic as your graffiti doorway. Looks a little soft to me--maybe noise reduction, I don't know.
Understand. No, it's not soft, ISO 200 BTW. I haven't quite figured it out. Angle of the sun, haze from humidity, though it's not a tremendously long telephoto? It actually looked that way by eye, at least as far as I remember and I do because I found it so striking. I saw this effect a few times in the late afternoon and morning, well after sunrise and before sunset. Maybe some of the others that have shot in this area have seen something similar.
-
Sometime a large diameter unsharp mask (with low percentage) helps increase local contrast and cuts haze a bit. (you would definitely want to mask the effect because you don't want to increase local contrast in the sky or trees) I am guessing haze and ozone is the culprit.
-
Sometime a large diameter unsharp mask (with low percentage) helps increase local contrast and cuts haze a bit. (you would definitely want to mask the effect because you don't want to increase local contrast in the sky or trees) I am guessing haze and ozone is the culprit.
Interesting nonetheless to me. BTW, I did apply USM as a final step.
-
This might be a tiny bit better. That high-in-the-sky sun isn't helping much.
-
Wow, very nice! You have managed to capture some drama without making it look over-processed. I might have aimed the camera a little lower to get more foreground - but then of course I don't know what was there.
-
As Fike has pointed out with his edit, my feeling is the haze is more due to processing than atmospheric condition. There's almost (sorta-kinda) a feel of light tone mapping to several of your images and its causing details to glom where what you really need is pop.
-
... Looks a little soft to me...
Enabling terrorists, aren't we? :(
-
This might be a tiny bit better...
Progressing to aiding and abetting them now?
-
This might be a tiny bit better. That high-in-the-sky sun isn't helping much.
Thanks for re-posting, Mark. Honestly, I cannot see a difference even zooming in using Windows Photo Viewer. Maybe I am biologically limited! Which would explain why I sometimes have issues with subtlety :DWow, very nice! You have managed to capture some drama without making it look over-processed. I might have aimed the camera a little lower to get more foreground - but then of course I don't know what was there.
I took several Peter and will look to see if I have what you suggest to see how it hits my eye. Thank you.As Fike has pointed out with his edit, my feeling is the haze is more due to processing than atmospheric condition. There's almost (sorta-kinda) a feel of light tone mapping to several of your images and its causing details to glom where what you really need is pop.
Actually this is one of my least processed shots, except for the sky, which was masked in PS. I appreciate the comments and the exhortation to attention to detail!Enabling terrorists, aren't we? :(
I think that's a complement, Slobodan?
-
... Actually this is one of my least processed shots, except for the sky, which was masked in PS... I think that's a complement, Slobodan?
Yes, it was a compliment to you on the "least processed" ... and a warning to Fike not to provoke you ;)
As another Dave (Isle of Sky) asked in another thread, are we really that obsessed with processing that we have to improve Mother Nature EVERY time? I mean, I am as guilty of that as the next guy, but my workflow of periodically returning to the image to view it with fresh eyes enables me to keep that temptation in check. I find that, more often than not, my further processing actually scales back the excess and returns it closer to the more "natural," original stage.
It was July, people! Hot and humid. David was on the river, on top of that. A lot of natural haze there. If we "normalize" every aspect of life and nature, producing equally sharp and crispy images (read: maximum sharp and crispy) then we are going to end up with that dreaded digital "plastic" look. All the perfection, all the time.
Just say NO! Keep those little imperfections, those telltale signs of real life. Not every sky has to be tornado-dramatic, or kitchen pot-blue.
If, however, in a hypothetical scenario, a magazine editor or stock agency asks David for a super crispy, bleedingly sharp shot of that basilica and he has only that hazy one, then, by all means, go ahead and process it until you get the last drop of crispness out of it.
Other than that scenario, if we process all our images to the same clinical perfection, removing all the signs of real life from it, how are we going to remember, ten or twenty years from now, that European vacation moment as hazy, hot, and humid?
Imagine David, talking to his sweetheart twenty years from now and looking at that basilica picture: "Ah, honey, sweet memories... remember that European vacation when... I applied that super-duper, secret recipe mask* in Photoshop to make the sky above Germany look like a Tornado Alley one?
* A telltale sign of that mask (the dark halo around the basilica's dome):
-
It was fine as shot, David. It doesn't need any cropping, extra sharpening (or less sharpening), or color changes. Yes, it's a tourist picture, but it's a damned good tourist picture.
-
Post Processing is like makeup:
The best thing is to look natural, but it takes makeup to look natural.
Kiss and make up--but too much makeup has ruined many a kiss.
My example was only one possibility for that image. I will leave it to David to decide what the day looked like and how he might process the pixels to best represent his vision.
-
Thanks Russ. It means a lot coming from you 'cause I like your straight shootin'.
And from you too, Slobodan! After that nice rant, you point out the deficiencies in my mask ;) How can I get that better? Over and over refining the edge in Refine Mask? Pixel by pixel touch up? And maybe I should incorporate a similar "pause" in my workflow, perhaps at least between LR and PS steps. I guess I am using these discussions to do the same thing...not entirely fair to you guys, but useful to me :)
Mark, did you see my reply earlier? I can't see any difference and would like to be able to see what you were getting at.
-
...
Mark, did you see my reply earlier? I can't see any difference and would like to be able to see what you were getting at.
the sample I posted had a very gentle application of unsharp mask with a very large diameter (something like 25 pixels) and a very low percentage (around 8%). I can see s small difference in apparent sharpness but at the expense of a bit of blocky contrast that was introduced. It probably could be better with a high-resolution version of the image (I was, of course, working with your low-resolution web copy).
I think the image is very nice and is worthy of processing that maximizes its goodness. I am not trying to make a garish fantasy as Slobo would have you believe. I assume you are trying to get the most out of your travel shots because you probably didn't have the luxury of sitting in this spot for 6-months to wait for perfect conditions. You shot a good exposure with the weather and timing that god gave you. Making the most of fit is no sin. If you want to post a higher resolution version, I would be willing to try my idea on it.
-
the sample I posted had a very gentle application of unsharp mask with a very large diameter (something like 25 pixels) and a very low percentage (around 8%). I can see s small difference in apparent sharpness but at the expense of a bit of blocky contrast that was introduced. It probably could be better with a high-resolution version of the image (I was, of course, working with your low-resolution web copy).
I think the image is very nice and is worthy of processing that maximizes its goodness. I am not trying to make a garish fantasy as Slobo would have you believe. I assume you are trying to get the most out of your travel shots because you probably didn't have the luxury of sitting in this spot for 6-months to wait for perfect conditions. You shot a good exposure with the weather and timing that god gave you. Making the most of fit is no sin. If you want to post a higher resolution version, I would be willing to try my idea on it.
I will try what you suggest and see if I can see that difference. I also need to fix that mask issue Slobodan raised. No worries, I knew what you were trying to say and I think Slobodan was backhandedly acknowledging that I had avoided applying my usually heavy hand. A funny and informative exchange was had by all! If I can't see it, I would very much appreciate your willingness to look at a higher res image. Slobodan has done this for me before where I was able to "reverse engineer" his rendering and learn a bunch in the process. So much to learn. Sigh.
-
... the deficiencies in my mask ;) How can I get that better? Over and over refining the edge in Refine Mask? Pixel by pixel touch up?...
I am not that much of an expert in PS masking, but from what I know, sometimes pixel by pixel seems to be the only way.
On the other hand, if you have to "fight" the mask (or any other tool), maybe you've gone too far? Perhaps the artifacts that start appearing are a blessing in disguise, telling you it's time to back off a bit? ;)
-
I am not that much of an expert in PS masking, but from what I know, sometimes pixel by pixel seems to be the only way.
On the other hand, if you have to "fight" the mask (or any other tool), maybe you've gone too far? Perhaps the artifacts that start appearing are a blessing in disguise, telling you it's time to back off a bit? ;)
You are a very tough Professor, Herr Blagojevic! :) A helpful admonition.
-
So re-did this using some luminosity masking thanks to the suggestion of Chris Callohan...not necessarily easy to apply, but brightness and contrast adjustments along with Highlights and Shadows was all that was required after a background duplication and Multiply blending. It's warmer for reasons I cannot divine at this time and perhaps a tad sharper. I'm going to stick with my original edit because after awhile I start seeing all kinds of different versions! Also, checked the original mask and that dark area pointed out by Slobodan is in the original DNG conversion (with no adjustments). This is shown in the OOC zoom. Thanks for all the comments. I realize that some of this has been very technical and really the aesthetics are of prime interest, but I am doing everything I can to become a craftsman, with your help of course!
-
David, I have this feeling that if you take the raw that came from your camera, adjust to make sure there's a bit of white clipping and a bit of black clipping, do a reasonable bit of sharpening, and quit screwing around with it, you'll have the best possible result. Everyone seems to get carried away with post-processing, but the processing that really matters is what takes place at the moment you trip the shutter. There's always a possibility that you'll need to make a small white balance adjustment, but in this picture that's a piece of cake. You have some heavy clouds in the picture. Heavy clouds are gray. A single click on the underside of a dark cloud with the middle gray dropper in ACR should take care of that. Instead of hovering over the computer, go out and shoot some more pictures. You're doing great.
-
...but then I wouldn't be a craftsman ;) Thanks for the encouragement, Russ.
-
Come on, David. The art and the craft is in deciding what to include and what to leave out. All the rest is simple-minded grunt work.
-
Come on, David. The art and the craft is in deciding what to include and what to leave out. All the rest is simple-minded grunt work.
+2
-
Come on, David. The art and the craft is in deciding what to include and what to leave out. All the rest is simple-minded grunt work.
How many times will you repeat your matra? Remember, "there are many paths to enlightenment."
-
So re-did this using some luminosity masking thanks to the suggestion of Chris Callohan...not necessarily easy to apply, but brightness and contrast adjustments along with Highlights and Shadows was all that was required after a background duplication and Multiply blending. It's warmer for reasons I cannot divine at this time and perhaps a tad sharper. I'm going to stick with my original edit because after awhile I start seeing all kinds of different versions! Also, checked the original mask and that dark area pointed out by Slobodan is in the original DNG conversion (with no adjustments). This is shown in the OOC zoom. Thanks for all the comments. I realize that some of this has been very technical and really the aesthetics are of prime interest, but I am doing everything I can to become a craftsman, with your help of course!
What did you do in that enlarged dome crop? (Sorry Russ, I didn't mean to use that word;-)) The zoomed CROP looks sharp. There is more sharpness in the image, but I think you processed it out in your final copy. What technique did you use for web publishing the image. The down-rez can sometimes make things look soft.
That final version you show is indeed over-processed.
-
How many times will you repeat your matra? Remember, "there are many paths to enlightenment."
Ah yes. . . But in photography, only one.
-
Ah yes. . . But in photography, only one.
Now I'm blushing!
Okay, sorry; just couldn't resist a feed like that. It's funny, but sometimes, sitting here and wondering who the hell everyone else might really be, I do get this sense of reckless abandon creep over me...
;-)
Rob C
-
... I do get this sense of reckless abandon creep over me...
;-)
Rob C
resist it.
-
It's okay, Rob. Let go and do something completely crazy. Like suggesting Isaac post a picture.
-
What did you do in that enlarged dome crop? (Sorry Russ, I didn't mean to use that word;-)) The zoomed CROP looks sharp. There is more sharpness in the image, but I think you processed it out in your final copy. What technique did you use for web publishing the image. The down-rez can sometimes make things look soft.
That final version you show is indeed over-processed.
The enlarged dome crop is OOC, no adjustments, just the NEF converted "straight" to DNG, no presets applied other than LR defaults. For the OP image, a USM was applied to finish the PSD, after masked adjustments, and from LR, the PSD was exported to the hard drive jpeg with "Standard" sharpening applied. I agree that the latest version (in the post with the cropped dome) is over done.
-
... Also, checked the original mask and that dark area pointed out by Slobodan is in the original DNG conversion (with no adjustments). This is shown in the OOC zoom...
It's been documented that certain RAW converters and certain cameras occasionally have a bug that results in black halos around high-contrast edges. Would be interesting to see if opening it in another RAW converter would show the same.
-
It's been documented that certain RAW converters and certain cameras occasionally have a bug that results in black halos around high-contrast edges. Would be interesting to see if opening it in another RAW converter would show the same.
Like ViewNX-2? Another? My take was that there were lots of tiny ridges that converge as the dome "goes round the corner." I'll see if ViewNX-2 makes a difference. I'll bet not.
-
For example, I remember Canon 5D2 had issues with black halos around bright spots. Also, see Adobe below: