Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on October 04, 2013, 01:03:14 pm
-
.
-
Or you can turn it into an AA masterpiece :)
-
Yeah, trouble is that the camels get lost in the beautiful, wispy cloud. Good conversion, though, Slobodan.
-
That's a great conversion, Slobodan; but does the sky really have to be quite so black?
Jeremy
-
That's a great conversion, Slobodan; but does the sky really have to be quite so black?
Jeremy
As you said to me, once Slobodan ;)!
-
That's a great conversion, Slobodan; but does the sky really have to be quite so black?
Jeremy
Yes, unfortunately. Anything less than -100 of blue in LR results in a heavy banding, due to the compressed jpeg. With RAW, I would go for something less extreme. Attached is an alternative version, using jpeg, vignetting, and GND filters instead of the blue channel.
-
Yes, unfortunately. Anything less than -100 of blue in LR results in a heavy bending, due to the compressed jpeg. With RAW, I would go for something less extreme. Attached is an alternative version, using jpeg, vignetting, and GND filters instead of the blue channel.
Excuse me? Why not merely adjust the exposure in the sky?
-
Excuse me? Why not merely adjust the exposure in the sky?
Because any changes to a heavily compressed jpeg are going to result in banding and posterization?
-
The first is your image of bending. The second is a crop of your adjustment with the sky less exposed. Please explain the problem.
-
The first is your image of bending. The second is a crop of your adjustment with the sky less exposed. Please explain the problem.
Not sure I understand your point. Not sure WHAT problem I am supposed to explain. Equally not sure WHY I am supposed to explain anything?
-
Not sure what the point is either. But here is another JPEG with banding. I never
could get rid of the banding except by painting the sky black on a separate layer.
Don't know why I bothered, because I've never printed it.
Regards,
Dale
-
Slobodan's rendering proves that it isn't what you shoot that is important. It is what you shoot and process is what counts. He has taken a "tourist" shot and made it more likeable imo. Something the "purists" should reflect on.
-
Something the "purists" should reflect on
I agree, if you're referring to the SOOC folks.
-
Or you can turn it into an AA masterpiece :)
With significant banding in your sky.
Yes, unfortunately. Anything less than -100 of blue in LR results in a heavy bending, due to the compressed jpeg. With RAW, I would go for something less extreme. Attached is an alternative version, using jpeg, vignetting, and GND filters instead of the blue channel.
Excuse me? Why not merely adjust the exposure in the sky?
Because any changes to a heavily compressed jpeg are going to result in bending and posterization?
So I merely adjusted the exposure, using LR4 and submitted an image without banding. Or do you prefer "bending"?
And you reply.....
Not sure I understand your point. Not sure WHAT problem I am supposed to explain. Equally not sure WHY I am supposed to explain anything?
It's pretty clear. "What's the matter with merely reducing the exposure in the sky"? Your acolytes are equally in the dark. You have a deserved reputation on this forum, and probably elsewhere. But that does not give you the right to dismiss we who are less able than you to process an image. But please explain ...
Yes, unfortunately. Anything less than -100 of blue in LR results in a heavy bending, due to the compressed jpeg. With RAW, I would go for something less extreme. Attached is an alternative version, using jpeg, vignetting, and GND filters instead of the blue channel.
-
Here's another version without the banding, and without losing the contrast between the camels and the little cloud.
-
With significant banding in your sky....
There was no banding in the "AA masterpiece" version, simply because I turned the sky into completely black (ie, "AA black")
... Or do you prefer "bending"?...
Thanks for catching the typo.
... But that does not give you the right to dismiss we who are less able than you to process an image. But please explain ...
Again, I am not sure what I did to provoke such a tone. I do not remember "dismissing" you or anyone else. I just said I do not understand your point.
So, let me step back and explain from the beginning.
1. Black sky question. Why so black? Two reasons: AA is known for such a black sky, hence I dubbed my result, jokingly, as ""AA masterpiece." Second reason is that I used a method that resulted in banding unless the sky is completely black (thus hiding the banding).
2. Why I used such a method? I was trying to quickly illustrate the point that there are opportunities for different interpretations of a "tourist snapshot." It was supposed to be an illustration of that idea, not a contest who can provide the best processing. The method I used is a standard b&w conversion method, which, when used with a RAW, produces reasonable results most of the time. With jpeg, that method resulted in banding in less than black sky.
3. Is there an alternative and better ways to handle that sky in LR? Absolutely. I suggested one such way myself (using GND and vignetting - effectively reducing exposure in the sky). You did the same, just decreasing exposure a bit more. But please note that both your and my attempts resulted in losing the white cloud crispiness, turning it into gray. Also, if one is after an even darker sky, using your and my method of reducing exposure, the banding is going to start showing - it is just the nature of working with a compressed jpeg.
4. Are there even better, more precise ways to handle the sky and preserve the clouds? Again, absolutely. One can use an adjustment brush in LR to select the sky (checking the Auto Mask option), thus bypassing the clouds. Or, for even more precision, one can go to Photoshop and use a plethora of masking options there. Any such method requires more time than I was willing to spend on someone else's jpeg, trying to illustrate the point, not trying to defend my "reputation."
-
Another method is to pull the thing up in Silver Efex Pro and use two control points: one in the sky to bring down the blue, and one in the rocks to bring them up a bit. Takes about six seconds. Ansel would have given his hat and spats for the kind of stuff we have available nowadays.
-
Ansel would have given his hat and spats for the kind of stuff we have available nowadays.
You can say that again!
Ansel would have given his hat and spats for the kind of stuff we have available nowadays.
-
You can say that again!
You did say it again ;D
-
Here's another version without the banding, and without losing the contrast between the camels and the little cloud.
That is a good conversion Russ.
I like it as much as my own. Actually, I might even like it more. Why? As I said many times before, I tend to revisit my edits a day, week, or even months later, and decide that i do not like what I did. Sometimes they are minor tweaks, sometimes what-was-I-thinking major overhauls.
Your interpretation brings us to another important point: photographer's intention and the role it plays in post-processing. Post-processing, the more it leans toward interpretation (vs. documenting), the more it relies on emphasizing different elements of the image. That's where the photographer's intention comes into play. He knows what is it that attracted him to the image in the first place, and he knows what he wanted to say, so he emphasizes it. Sometimes, the scene itself lends itself to a limited range of interpretations, when it is obvious both to the photographer and the viewer where the primary focus should be. Like a magnificent mountain range on the backdrop of a busy foreground, as I commented on another thread. In your case, you noticed the camels, I did not. So you decided to emphasize it, rightly. I also like that you tonally separated two rock formations better than I did, creating a better sense of 3D.
As an aside, your sky now contains bands of a different sort:
-
As you pointed out, Slobodan, it's a lot easier when you're working with a raw file. Yes, I'm not sure where those bands come from. With a lighter treatment of the sky they stand out more. The sun was coming from that direction, and it seems to be a feature of the light. Obviously it's not banding in the usual sense. I'm sure there's an explanation, but I'm not aware of it.