Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: riverrat66 on July 29, 2011, 11:30:05 pm
-
I shot this in south central Missouri. Several spring fed streams, nice area to be in during this drought.
-
Nice shot, though the foreground seems over-exposed, and there's a dark band running around the tops of the trees.
-
Agree, it is very obvious where you have burned the sky and/or dodged the foreground. beautiful colors tho. Eleanor
Nice shot, though the foreground seems over-exposed, and there's a dark band running around the tops of the trees.
-
I was trying to blend two photos. I think I'll try HDR. There has got to be a better way than I did it. Do you know any better ways? Thanks for the help.
-
... I think I'll try HDR. There has got to be a better way than I did it. Do you know any better ways? Thanks for the help.
Please do not. There is absolutely nothing in the shadows worth opening that much. The attraction of the image lies in the sky color and its reflection in the river. There is nothing in the shadows worth revealing. The left bank gravel competes for attention with the river reflections and adds nothing compositionally, so leave it in the shade. Human perception expects to see the trees darker than the sky, so leave it so. The only reason to open the shadows a bit would be to avoid a total black splotch.
-
Slobodan’s comments are good. Also, without using HDR or 2 images, you might try try adding a multiply layer on the water and sky.
Really nice shot!
-
I would also clone the telephone wire out of the image ...
.
-
Good points however I do like the colors and reflections of the sky in the river. Eleanor
Please do not. There is absolutely nothing in the shadows worth opening that much. The attraction of the image lies in the sky color and its reflection in the river. There is nothing in the shadows worth revealing. The left bank gravel competes for attention with the river reflections and adds nothing compositionally, so leave it in the shade. Human perception expects to see the trees darker than the sky, so leave it so. The only reason to open the shadows a bit would be to avoid a total black splotch.
-
I would also clone the telephone wire out of the image ...
Good catch, John, and welcome back!
-
;D
-
To fis the dark band over the trees I would either run it through an HDR program and the overlay that onto your current exposure and blend to fit. Or work on your layer blending in the current image and darken all of the trees to avoid that distracting shift. The eye will accept a lot, as long as it's consistent.
-
I would just like to see from one of the exposures made and not the composite blend. That way you would have all the tones of light and shade in order, I don't think it needs an extended DR. I think the HDR look is a special effect and should be used as an exception, the current trend is to try and show detail in everything and it's a trap some fall into.
Kevin.
-
I was trying to blend two photos. I think I'll try HDR. There has got to be a better way than I did it. Do you know any better ways? Thanks for the help.
When you have an irregular skyline especially with trees then it is difficult to combine two images. HDR won't work imo. If there is enough room in a sky then a graduated layer in PS can help. The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one. No image is better than one with processing faults? :)
-
When you have an irregular skyline especially with trees then it is difficult to combine two images. HDR won't work imo. If there is enough room in a sky then a graduated layer in PS can help. The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one. No image is better than one with processing faults? :)
I fervently disagree. HDR is most definitely possible with trees and a complex skyline, it is just more difficult. It requires programs to assist, or lots of time in photoshop tweaking masks with a low opacity brush. One image I worked on had a pine tree in front of the sunset, and I spent 6 hours blending it by hand. And now your hard pressed to pick out any haloing.
As for not taking a great image because you think the post processing might be too difficult? Utter nonsense and horrible advice. There are so many photoshop tutorials online you can learn what you need to get it done, or you can file the image away for the future when you will be more experienced at post (or they have new HDR programs). Don't ever let post stop you from taking a photo. The memory card doesn't cost anything to develop and the digital files won't expire.
-
Six hours? How can that possibly be good advice. I didn't suggest NOT taking an image. My suggestion was aimed at choosing one from what you had captured. That is a definite skill.....choosing the good ones from the not so good. :)
Quote
Utter nonsense and horrible advice.
Unquote
I see you are a newbie. Disagree with posts - as is your right - but I suggest you do it in a mannerly way. :o
-
But you did suggest not taking the image, as you said no image was better than one with processing defects. Hate to use your words against you, but that's what you said. And frankly I just called you out because it's bad advice.
I do believe I did disagree with your post in a mannerly way, I called your advice horrible, it wasn't a personal attack on you or your character. As every artist knows just because someone doesn't like their work doesn't mean they dislike the artist as a person. Just like you not wanting to spend 6 hours in post on a photo is not a judgement of how you feel about me as an individual. I am just sensitive to people who tell new photographers not to take pictures. That's just not right in my book.
Sure I'm a newbie on the forums, never mind my years of experience, published photos, or work in galleries across the country. All rubbish
-
I will try again.
quote
The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one.
unquote
Note the word processed ... it isn't the same as taking an image. It means to enhance an image. I gave my opinion in a mannerly way and the response wasn't - imo - a mannerly one. If you read again reply # 12 the poster asked for a better way than using HDR and I replied in that context.
quote
Utter nonsense and horrible advice.
unquote
That isn't mannerly where I come from.....especially considering that I didn't address any comments at you.
-
I fervently disagree. HDR is most definitely possible with trees and a complex skyline, it is just more difficult....
Just because something is technically possible, does not mean it should be used. Remember, we are talking about a specific image, the one OP posted, and, as I said above, that image needs zero HDR processing.
-
... Sure I'm a newbie on the forums, never mind my years of experience, published photos, or work in galleries across the country...
And we are supposed to know that... how? You do not post under your real name and do not provide any links to your online presence.
-
I will try again as well :-)
By saying not taking an image / comp you want because you don't think it can be processed is to me, silly and bad advice. I think everyone should try to explore their photography and push their limits to learn new things.
My response was opinionated, and that opinion differed from yours. That does not make it unmannerly. Unmannerly would be for me to be a dick and attack you personally, or you to call me a noob. Thats just spite.
Me disagreeing about your opinion does not constitute unmannerly in my culture, it just makes you not one of the sheep.
-
And we are supposed to know that... how? You do not post under your real name and do not provide any links to your online presence.
I need to submit a resume to offer advice on a forum? Interesting take on it......
Www.flickr.com/photos/mmkuhns
If that will make you happy.
-
Just because something is technically possible, does not mean it should be used. Remember, we are talking about a specific image, the one OP posted, and, as I said above, that image needs zero HDR processing.
You think it needs zero HDR processing, however my opinion is that it could be a spectacular HDR shot if he can clean up the haloing.
You don't have to tone map it or bring the trees to the brightness of day, but I think making it just another shot with pretty sunset and silhouetted trees would be.... Dull. Bring up the darks and make it appear like his eye saw it when he took the photo. But that's just my opinion, many will doubtless disagree
-
For example, 3 shot hand blend in photoshop. Did it take a long long time to do that tree? Yes it did. Was it worth it? Yes it was because its gotten into a number of shows. Obviosuly not everyone is that anal in their photo editing but....its an option. Would this shot have worked as well without hdr? I dont think so.
Similarly I think the OP should keep some detail in his trees etc, provide additional depth and interest to the image.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5472838321_49ea5a3d70_o.jpg)
-
I need to submit a resume to offer advice on a forum? Interesting take on it......
Www.flickr.com/photos/mmkuhns
If that will make you happy.
No, of course not, and that is not what I said. It was you who brought your resume into the debate. But just in a few first posts you've already established a reputation for twisting other posters' words and then calling it "utter nonsense". Which, apparently, in your culture (or shall I say "culture"?) is not unmannerly but just... manly (as opposed to "sheeply").
You might be the greatest photographer on Earth (and maybe you are, I have not yet checked your link), but your introduction to this forum has been marked so far by an aggressive, combative, argumentative, uncalled-for tone. And it is not about your differing opinion, it is about your tone (which, btw, is not unusual on this forum... it is just that it usually comes from members who "earned" it first).
-
For example, 3 shot hand blend in photoshop...
That is a nice one. But it does not strengthen your pro-HDR argument regarding the OP image. Your image does have the foreground detail worth showing. The OP does not (imo, of course).
And btw, just because an image has made it to "a number of shows" does not make it worthy by that fact alone.
-
sigh.
If you go and read my reply to stamper, I disagree I was combative I just didnt like his advice and wanted to give the OP a conflicting point of view.
Stamper got all pissy about it and well....that pissed me off. You then jumped to his defense, as I assume you know each other from previous threads. Your perrogative, but I am not the type to be pushed around because someone thinks I'm a newbie. And by insinuatng that I was unable to offer critique that you would take seriously without a portfolio link, that was you asking for a resume.
The wonderful thing about art is everyone is entitled to their opinion, you dont want his image to bring out the darks, and I do. Who is right? Well neither of us and both of us. If he were to submit it to a competition it would just depend on who the judge happened to be that particular day.
And I disagree about an image making it into shows, I believe it is important that it made it into shows because it shows that it is up to a certain level of quality. Even though its style may not be your cup of tea.
And I did take the time to look at your work, you are a very accomplished photographer. I dont always prefer the style of images you shoot, but it is all very skillfully done. Your chicago glow and bass harber lighthouse shots are wonderful.
-
... but I am not the type to be pushed around because someone thinks I'm a newbie....
I really do not want to continue this on a personal level, but I can't help pointing out this: it is not me or Stamper or someone who "thinks" you are a newbie... it simply says so under your name ;) Which, of course, refers to your presence on this board, not your overall experience. And that was the same sense in which both Stamper and I referred to you.
And now back to our regular programming... which should be photography.
-
I will try again as well :-)
By saying not taking an image / comp you want because you don't think it can be processed is to me, silly and bad advice. I think everyone should try to explore their photography and push their limits to learn new things.
My response was opinionated, and that opinion differed from yours. That does not make it unmannerly. Unmannerly would be for me to be a dick and attack you personally, or you to call me a noob. Thats just spite.
Me disagreeing about your opinion does not constitute unmannerly in my culture, it just makes you not one of the sheep.
You are entitled to disagree but if this the manner in which you do on a regular basis then you will have problems on this forum. The forum is mostly a reasonable place but there are one or two posters that will be distinctly unhappy if you reply to them as you did to myself and Slobodan. :-X
-
mkuhns
Here is a link for you. Since you haven't been here long you probably haven't seen it.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=20686.0
This is what most posters on here think about HDR. Be nice if you post on the thread. ;D ;)
-
For example, 3 shot hand blend in photoshop. Did it take a long long time to do that tree? Yes it did. Was it worth it? Yes it was because its gotten into a number of shows. Obviosuly not everyone is that anal in their photo editing but....its an option. Would this shot have worked as well without hdr? I dont think so.
Similarly I think the OP should keep some detail in his trees etc, provide additional depth and interest to the image.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5472838321_49ea5a3d70_o.jpg)
Great shot, but I do feel the current trend with combining multi exposures is that you end up with something looking like CGI, this one not as bad as most, but still it looks like a scene from another planet. I also find it too saturated. I can see why many would love the image it is a great shot, my taste would be to crank it down a few notches in saturation and be prepared to lose some shadow detail to keep it real. Overall I think it's lovely and wish I had been there.
Kevin.
-
there are one or two posters that will be distinctly unhappy if you reply to them as you did to myself and Slobodan. :-X
Jeez Stamper! Don't sell yourself short - I thought he hit the jackpot first time! ;D
William