Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Landscape Showcase => Topic started by: maddogmurph on January 26, 2020, 04:58:31 am
-
I can't believe it's taken me this long to work on this... It's because my old computer struggled with 6-shot panos of 45mp data... every adjustment was a pain. Now I'm on AMD's 3900x and have the 3950x in the mail to me... these things are beast mode.
I have more work to do on this image... But it's late and I've looked at it too long, so I thought I'd ask for thoughts?
-
I like the composition and threatening clouds, perhaps evening out the foreground exposure would balance the image? Moab?
-
I can't believe it's taken me this long to work on this... It's because my old computer struggled with 6-shot panos of 45mp data... every adjustment was a pain. Now I'm on AMD's 3900x and have the 3950x in the mail to me... these things are beast mode.
I have more work to do on this image... But it's late and I've looked at it too long, so I thought I'd ask for thoughts?
Curious, why are going for the 3950x when you already have the 3900x? I mean I get it’s a little faster but it’s 50% more expensive.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CPU-performance-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X-1611/
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CPU-performance-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X-1612/
-
Now that I took a look on a bigger monitor I think it mostly fine, you can always keep adjusting stuff but with diminishing returns. One area that maybe I would spend more time is the left upper on the distant hills which seem to be a little in limbo, at this size looks that they either need to be less contrasty/clear or the opposite (artistic choice), because they seem to be neither here or there.
-
Very nice shot. I would ever so slightly take down the brightness of the sky on the horizon where the rocks meet the sky and open up the shadows a tiny bit in the foreground. I think those adjustments would balance it out a bit more. Just my opinion.
-
Lovely moment. Imagine a wall filled with this!
-
Astounding, as usual, maddog
-
Well done.
-
Very nice shot. I would ever so slightly take down the brightness of the sky on the horizon where the rocks meet the sky and open up the shadows a tiny bit in the foreground. I think those adjustments would balance it out a bit more. Just my opinion.
I like it very much, and find it even better with more opened shadows.
Thierry
-
Very nice shot. I would ever so slightly take down the brightness of the sky on the horizon where the rocks meet the sky and open up the shadows a tiny bit in the foreground. I think those adjustments would balance it out a bit more. Just my opinion.
@Wolfman - Interestingly enough I've ended up doing the exact opposite.
"Sky" attached is the previous dark exposure. "Foreground" attached is a current light exposure. Same 6 shot stitch, just different processing for the two areas... and one of the reasons I no longer use GND filters.
I've been working slowly towards what I think of as "from the eye" processing. Our eyes can see something like 20 stops of dynamic range. To get that kind of range in a photo I need the brights as high as possible without blowing out, and darks as dark as possible while retaining detail. So I brightened up the sky to allow it to match better with a light foreground. As you can see with that type of sky, the foreground would have to be very dark to match.
I also took out the blue saturation in the sky and evened out the color warmth a bit to adjust for realistic color. One of the biggest problems is converting to JPG, which dramatically shifts color, so I spent a lot of time working on calibrating the color shift. I also brought in some orton, and color soft light to accent edges that would have caught the light. As we might see "from the eye"
-
Excellent work.
-
The first of the batch of four looks much the best, to my eyes - and it's damn good, too.
Jeremy
-
Awesome shot. Suggestions are probably worth exploring, but it's pretty sweet as-is.
-
maddogmurph.......No matter what it's a great image.....I appreciate your eye.
-
maddogmurph.......No matter what it's a great image.....I appreciate your eye.
And your dedication to accessing beautiful, if difficult, locations.
-
I think that Pano2 jpeg is slightly better save for the really saturated red cloud cluster on right - might have toned that down a bit. One issue is the composition which is of course "moot". "If possible" I would have tried this with camera lower so that the top of principal conical form nearest the viewer was breaking slightly above the distant ridgeline. As it is, the top just dies in that line and has no "relief". The tops of the conical form to the left and those to the right all are distinctly seen if you will. I think that principal conical shape is a very powerful part of this tableau and needed to be distinct (breaking ridgeline) especially since it is mostly in shade along with it's surrounding areas.
-
The first of the batch of four looks much the best, to my eyes - and it's damn good, too.
Jeremy
I agree.
-
The first of the batch of four looks much the best, to my eyes - and it's damn good, too.
Jeremy
+2
Thierry
-
The first of the batch of four looks much the best, to my eyes - and it's damn good, too.
Jeremy
Yeah... I guess I didn't really disclose that was the final edit... Glad you picked that one after all that work!! The others were just to show the dark vs light blend essentially to illustrate why I brought the sky up rather than down for Wolfman.
-
I can't believe it's taken me this long to work on this... It's because my old computer struggled with 6-shot panos of 45mp data... every adjustment was a pain. Now I'm on AMD's 3900x and have the 3950x in the mail to me... these things are beast mode.
I have more work to do on this image... But it's late and I've looked at it too long, so I thought I'd ask for thoughts?
Excellent shot and especially the final version lower down the thread - do you think your sluggish computer is due to the AMD chip? The only reason I ask this, is because I am running an old (10+ years) computer but with the original Intel i7 chip with 16gb of RAM and even though I quite often stitch 10 vertical image panos or more using Sony A7R2 uncompressed raws, which are huge, it still runs at acceptable speeds and isn't sluggish at all. But I do only use this machine for image processing and so it has no other programs etc running in the background, but I have no problem creating 2gb or more sized panos and have quite a few stored on my HDD and everything still runs pretty well for me, so just wondering if it is an AMD issue or something that is causing you problems?
Dave
-
Excellent shot and especially the final version lower down the thread - do you think your sluggish computer is due to the AMD chip? The only reason I ask this, is because I am running an old (10+ years) computer but with the original Intel i7 chip with 16gb of RAM and even though I quite often stitch 10 vertical image panos or more using Sony A7R2 uncompressed raws, which are huge, it still runs at acceptable speeds and isn't sluggish at all. But I do only use this machine for image processing and so it has no other programs etc running in the background, but I have no problem creating 2gb or more sized panos and have quite a few stored on my HDD and everything still runs pretty well for me, so just wondering if it is an AMD issue or something that is causing you problems?
Dave
Specs:
ROG Strix x570 (Motherboard)
3950x AMD (CPU)
Ballistix Elite 32GB DDR4-3600 (Ram)
MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB (Video Card)
Intel 660p M.2 2TB (Working File Hard Drive)
12 GB Sata (Backup drive)
NEC PA271Q-BK 27" (Color-Critical IPS Monitor)
Dave, I had what you have. It worked. What I have now is faster. Although I still have critical system gltiches I'm trying to work out. I couldn't buy a computer with these specs for a reasonable price anywhere.
The M.2 drives with raid have a read/write speed of something like 1,800MB/s. Eventually I'd like to move heavier into timelapse and perhaps utilize 4k video in drones... so this computer was a step in that direction.