Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 25, 2015, 10:06:48 pm
-
My post-processing skills finally catching up with some difficult files :)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/723/20699327499_efaff5a760_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xx8sUT)
The Magnificent Tetons (https://flic.kr/p/xx8sUT) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
P.S. There is a larger version on 500Px (https://500px.com/photo/119548721/magnificent-tetons-by-slobodan-blagojevic?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=738464) - click on the image there and enlarge your browser full-screen
-
Very nice view on those toothy ridges. The light is very difficult and you managed to keep a natural look, well done!
-
Very nice view on those toothy ridges. The light is very difficult and you managed to keep a natural look, well done!
+1. I might have centered the range.
-
Cool pano
-
two thumbs up!
-
+1. I might have centered the range.
Now that's an interesting idea and not a bad one. Thanks for that. It was a 3:1 pano before, but if I go 2:1, I'd get this. Better?
-
Here is a b&w version as well:
(http://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s12/v170/p1608753637-5.jpg) (http://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p861162586/e5fe3a1e5)
Might require scrolling here on LuLa, unless you are in a full-screen mode.
-
Like the B/W version very much.
Thierry
-
I really enjoy the B/W image, but all are spectacular. (I only wish I had a larger monitor to view it on 500Px. A large print would be sensational imho.)
-
Here is a b&w version as well:
I like that a lot more than the colour version, Slobodan.
Jeremy
-
It was a 3:1 pano before, but if I go 2:1, I'd get this. Better?
Yes!
I understand why people like the B&W, the colour version has a naturally dull foreground. Have you tried increasing the brightness of the yellow trees? Or darkening the grass a tad... lots to try here.
-
Color and 2:1
Nice!
-
... Have you tried increasing the brightness of the yellow trees? Or darkening the grass a tad...
Already done in the OP photo. Any more and it would start looking like an HDR.
-
OK Slobodan I'm going to be the odd one out on this one. IMO this shot just doesn't work. Beside the kind of dull (tonewise) foreground, to me the angles created by the fence in the pano are distracting and the shot is too far away to really capture the grandeur of the Tetons (at least not for me). I'll admit a bit of a bias as I grew up n NW Wyoming and have been to the Tetons many times and obviously have a view of the range built into my own personal virtual gallery.
The city work you have been posting is outstanding!
Best,
Chuck
-
:'( :'( :'(
-
:'( :'( :'(
;D I think those are crocodile tears. Anyway as you say all critique is good critique (even if you don't agree).
-
;D I think those are crocodile tears. Anyway as you say all critique is good critique (even if you don't agree).
I was kidding, of course. And yes, I stand by it, that all critique is good critique, so thank you for it.
I just put my money where my mouth is, even if it is on a casino table (a.k.a. art fair), as I ordered a 20"x60" canvas for two art fairs in September. So will see. If I do not sell it, you were right. :)
-
Hope it sells! I'm glad to be proven wrong. :)
-
...Anyway as you say all critique is good critique...
Thanks for noticing and remembering, btw. :)
-
Pretty cool shot(s) with the way the opening in the clouds follows the contour of the range. Tough lighting tamed well too.
I also wish the mountain peak would be centered, but in the 3:1 ratio. Not sure if you have the pixels to do that but it might be worth considering if you do.
Out of curiosity, where do you order your canvas prints from?
-
... I also wish the mountain peak would be centered, but in the 3:1 ratio...
The b&w version above is quite close to that (i.e., centered in the 3:1).
I see the point about centering. At the same time, I hate losing that sense of grandeur that the wider panorama has. I print on large canvas, and the ratio is often dictated by available sizes.
As for more contrast and saturation, the OP image already had that boosted for the row of golden trees in the middle ground and the mountain range. The foreground has been simultaneously darkened as to lead the eye toward the middle ground and the opening in the sky.
However... I was reluctant to overdo it, for the following reasons:
- making the middle ground too contrasty and saturated would attract too much attention to it, instead to the mountains and the crack in the clouds
- it was really stormy and cloudy where I was standing, and the foreground and middle ground were in the shade even when the sun illuminated the clouds. Things in the shade always tend to have lower contrast and saturation; boosting it might lead to an unnatural feel, almost like the dreaded (nuclear) HDR
- the perception of lightness, contrast and saturation depends on the image size and/or viewing distance. Seen bigger, as in a 20"x 60" print, or even full-screen, we tend to examine image segments as we do in nature, i.e., the eye selects a detail and adjusts accordingly.
...Out of curiosity, where do you order your canvas prints from?
CG Pro Prints. (http://www.cgproprints.com)
-
Very nice.
-
My post-processing skills finally catching up with some difficult files :)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/723/20699327499_efaff5a760_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xx8sUT)
The Magnificent Tetons (https://flic.kr/p/xx8sUT) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
P.S. There is a larger version on 500Px (https://500px.com/photo/119548721/magnificent-tetons-by-slobodan-blagojevic?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=738464) - click on the image there and enlarge your browser full-screen
I really like this picture, however I feel that wide panoramas are difficult to appreciate when not printed. So if you plan to print this as 10 ft wide keep the dimensions, if it goes into an online portfolio I would crop for a less wide look. Maybe cut of some of the foreground and left side.
-
Great view and excellent capture, Slobodan. Both colour and B&W versions are more than worthy, although I would tend to slightly higher contrast inthe B&W and to give it more "umph".
Great stuff!
-
I've been away for a week, so I just saw this thread now.
I think Slobodan's processing skills are definitely quite adequate. I would even be more than willing to accept as a donation any of his reject prints of this scene, color or black-and-white, in either 2:1 or 3:1.
Nice shot!
-
I was startled to see this your striking image Slobodon. I was in the Tetons two weeks ago and have been working on the image below. Seems you and I were in the same place. ;D
Tom
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/669/20532096638_0b92374742_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xhmn1b)Tetons_Panorama1 copy (https://flic.kr/p/xhmn1b) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
-
I was startled to see this your striking image Slobodon. I was in the Tetons two weeks ago and have been working on the image below. Seems you and I were in the same place. ;D
Hi Tom,
Yes, that is a popular spot, known as the Teton Point Turnout. A place you can safely park and enjoy the view. I was half way on my way back to Jackson Hole, driving from the "usual suspects" points, like Oxbow Bend. The day was gray and dark, stormy, and I thought I'd call it a day. When I saw the break in the clouds, I stopped the car and set up the tripod. The road there is quite elevated, relative to the field below (i.e., the slope in the left corner of the OP image is real, not just a pano exaggeration).
-
Great capture but the light is NO JOKE. You did an amazing job but I'm sure Ansel would say "this was...difficult".
Mark
-
The b&w version above is quite close to that (i.e., centered in the 3:1).
I see the point about centering. At the same time, I hate losing that sense of grandeur that the wider panorama has. I print on large canvas, and the ratio is often dictated by available sizes.
As for more contrast and saturation, the OP image already had that boosted for the row of golden trees in the middle ground and the mountain range. The foreground has been simultaneously darkened as to lead the eye toward the middle ground and the opening in the sky.
However... I was reluctant to overdo it, for the following reasons:
- making the middle ground too contrasty and saturated would attract too much attention to it, instead to the mountains and the crack in the clouds
- it was really stormy and cloudy where I was standing, and the foreground and middle ground were in the shade even when the sun illuminated the clouds. Things in the shade always tend to have lower contrast and saturation; boosting it might lead to an unnatural feel, almost like the dreaded (nuclear) HDR
- the perception of lightness, contrast and saturation depends on the image size and/or viewing distance. Seen bigger, as in a 20"x 60" print, or even full-screen, we tend to examine image segments as we do in nature, i.e., the eye selects a detail and adjusts accordingly.
CG Pro Prints. (http://www.cgproprints.com)
I use them too. Those 20x60 panels have done pretty well for me. 12x36 too.
-
OK Slobodan I'm going to be the odd one out on this one. IMO this shot just doesn't work. Beside the kind of dull (tonewise) foreground, to me the angles created by the fence in the pano are distracting and the shot is too far away to really capture the grandeur of the Tetons (at least not for me)...
OK Chuck, eat your heart out! ;D
I just got a note from the publisher of the Digital Photo Magazine that the OP image has been selected as a finalist in their Landscape 2015 competition.
-
Man, you don't make it easy! Gorgeous images both. To be honest I can't choose. Win, win!
Mark
-
Man, you don't make it easy! Gorgeous images both. To be honest I can't choose. Win, win!
Mark
+1.
The folks at Digital Photo Magazine must be smarter than the average critic.
-
OK Chuck, eat your heart out! ;D
I just got a note from the publisher of the Digital Photo Magazine that the OP image has been selected as a finalist in their Landscape 2015 competition.
That's fantastic! I am proven wrong with pleasure.
But - I still don't think it stands up to a number of your other shots.
Chuck