Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Lonnie Utah on November 12, 2013, 04:31:29 pm
-
I don't normally landscape during the day, but sometimes, you just have to.
(http://www.LANDSHAPEPHOTOGRAPHY.com/img/s5/v119/p652940048-5.jpg)
-
Glad you did, Lonnie!
That's nice and feels comfortable from a favorite place.
Well done!
-
Ditto +1
-
That is freaking beautiful !!
Print it and frame it!
David
-
Wow, that is a seriously beautiful view!
-
Interesting juxtaposition of colours! Well seen!!
Mike.
-
When you have such a beautiful place and colours, even during the day the photos are interesting.
-
When you have such a beautiful place and colours, even during the day the photos are interesting.
+1.
-
Really like the colors very much.
Blue and yellow work well together and with the quasi B/W of the rest of the photo.
Thierry
-
Thanks everyone. I really was just out for a drive and stumbled across this scene. If you've never been to this particular part of the world, it can be a pretty stark landscape.
Caineville Badlands (https://www.google.com/search?q=color+wheel&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=N9-DUtyLAeKDiwLK0YDgAQ&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1553&bih=891#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=caineville+badlands&tbm=isch&imgdii=_)
FWIW, the exif data is intact for those that are interested.
Date Time Original: 2013-10-26 13:16:19
Exposure Time: 1/30
F Number: f/13
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings: 200
Metering Mode: CenterWeightedAverage
Focal Length: 105mm
Make SONY
Model DSLR-A900
I was also using a polarizer to "darken" the sky and highlight the foliage.
I also cropped it from a 3:2 to a 2:1 aspect ratio (cutting out some negative space created by an empty sky).
Blue and yellow work well together
That's the only way I think this works during "midday". These shades of yellow and blue are complimentary to each other on the color wheel, and as a result, I think it must create a very pleasing effect for our eyes/brain.
Personally, I also like how there are basically layers of parallel lines that run thru the photo (from the trees, to the mesas, to the clouds.)
-
Great work!
-
Very nice scene and colors. I would suggest that it is a bit underexposed.
Chuck
-
I would suggest that it is a bit underexposed.
Here's the histogram if you're curious. If it's underexposed, it's not by very much....
-
Lonnie, did you selectively brighten the trees in the foreground? How did you edit this image?
-
Lonnie, did you selectively brighten the trees in the foreground? How did you edit this image?
Honestly, without going back and reopening the raw file in ACR, I couldn't tell you the exact process. I think I spent about 5 mins on the edits. My work flow is generally pretty minimal. 99.9% of the time everything is on one layer is CS5. I'm pretty sure that I used the adjustment brushes in ACR to make minor tweets in Contrast/Exp/Sharpness/Saturation to various parts of the image (and I'm sure that there was a brush for the foreground trees), but until I have time to sit down and look at what I actucally did, unfortunately, I can't provide any specifics. I normally don't do anything too radical. I'll update as soon as I get a chance.
-
Here's the histogram if you're curious. If it's underexposed, it's not by very much....
I don't normally get involved in this type of discussion because I expect that you presented the image the way you want it and I respect that. But in the spirit of my learning something - what I see in the histogram (I assume that this is a luminosity histogram) is that a majority of the pixels are in the lower half of the histogram. The colors histogram show that the blue and red channels have a large number of pixels pushed up against the left side of the histogram. Of course the histograms are image dependent and don't mean much out of context but in this fully lit daylight image, having a majority of the pixels in the darker tones seems odd and the background seems flat (underexposed). In this case brightening or an inverse S curves modification provides a believable (again IMO) image. I have take the liberty below just to demonstrate what I mean.[
Cheers,
Chuck
Removed as requested. Apologies fot attempting to illustrate my point and engage you in meaningful discussion.
-
I don't normally get involved in this type of discussion because I expect that you presented the image the way you want it and I respect that. But in the spirit of my learning something - what I see in the histogram (I assume that this is a luminosity histogram) is that a majority of the pixels are in the lower half of the histogram. The colors histogram show that the blue and red channels have a large number of pixels pushed up against the left side of the histogram. Of course the histograms are image dependent and don't mean much out of context but in this fully lit daylight image, having a majority of the pixels in the darker tones seems odd and the background seems flat (underexposed). In this case brightening or an inverse S curves modification provides a more believable (again IMO) image. I have take the liberty below just to demonstrate what I mean.
Cheers,
Chuck
Yes, and it's very, very, very bad form to edit someones image without their permission. IF you truly respected my image, they would not have "taken the liberty to modify it". I'm going to say this one time nicely. Please delete the modified version of MY image. I'm sorry you don't like the way I processed it, but in the end, it's the way I want to present it. If you'd like to present something differently, then you're more than welcome to travel to that location, capture the image and process it any way you please.
Yes, you've very much touched a never with me, not in the comments, but it altering MY art. And yes, I feel that altering and re-posting my work IS copyright infringement.
From the forum registration agreement.
You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material
I would say, that you didn't get written consent from the copyright owner (me) to edit and post this.
-
I don't normally landscape during the day, but sometimes, you just have to.
(http://www.LANDSHAPEPHOTOGRAPHY.com/img/s5/v119/p652940048-5.jpg)
I don't think it's underexposed to the point of needing any adjustment. Getting the perfect amount of exposure is tough when you have bright daylight conditions. +1 :)
-
Removed as requested. Apologies fot attempting to illustrate my point and engage you in meaningful discussion.
Chuck,
It has ZERO to do with engaging me in meaningful discussion, I do that all the time. Forgive me for taking offense with you modifying my images. I'm very protective of my work and not without good reason. For someone that puts their pieces up for sale, having someone, who's skill level is unknown to the world modify the pieces devalues not only that piece, but the entire collection as a whole. You're dang lucky I just sent a polite request to just delete the image and not a bill for a one time bill for worldwide online display.
Now as for the ethics of modifying someone's image without permission, would you engage someone over the virtues of a Picasso or a Monet or a Rembrandt? Yes. How about Galen Rolen print or a Ansel Adams or a Fatali? Yes. Would modify ANY of these pictures to try to make them better? Not in 1,000,000 years. You wouldn't because you can't begin to assume what the artist was trying to visualize when they created the final image. While my skill level isn't even in the same ball park as the folks I mentioned above, the ethos is identical. It's pretty dang arrogant for someone other than the original artist to assume that they can improve upon what was presented. Had I wanted your help I would have ASKED for your help. When you said "I think it's underexposed", did I say, "Would you fix it for me?" No. I provided a pretty balanced histogram that indicated a reasonable exposure for the conditions presented.
To be continued....
-
I think we should differentiate between the user critiques forum and this place here.
I'd generally agree to take "permission to edit" not for granted here but I also am not entirely sure if a post of an edited low res version in the same thread than the low res original would not fall under "fair use".
Usually we all learn something from it.
Nice color contrast by the way ... :)
-
Lonnie, did you selectively brighten the trees in the foreground? How did you edit this image?
Sorry for the delay in answering this. I checked the file and, no, I did not lighten the foreground trees. In fact I slightly darkened (0.2 of a step) the gray/green sagebrush in the foreground (I'm sure to highlight the foliage without making those colors go out of gamut (which is very easy to do if you aren't careful.)) That brush also added contrast and sharpness.
I used two other adjustment brushes as well. One was localized mostly on the shadow areas on the midground mesa. I slightly brightened those areas. (about 1/3 of a step). While I know some folks are big on punching in a lot of fill light to bring up shadow detail, I'm leery of doing that because of the amount of noise that that technique introduces into those areas. Personally, I'd rather those areas be a little dark, with less noise than brighter and noisy.
The final brush I used was a contrast/sharpness/clarity bump in the background mesa. As everyone knows, shooting distant features at this time of day can lead to some wicked haze even in the least polluted landscapes. I find adding localized contrast/sharpness/clarity helps reduce that effect. While there is definitely a haze in this image, I personally think it's pretty well controlled given the challenges of shooting at that time of day (1 PM MDT) under full sun at an oblique angle to the camera.
Chuck suggested using a curves layer adjustment to increase the overall brightness of the image. While I have certainty done this in the past and keep that tool in my toolbox, I find it a rather clumsy tool unless the whole image is woefully underexposed/overexposed. The problem for me is that curves and levels make global adjustments to the image where very often we only need local adjustments. To make levels and curves work correctly if you don't want to apply the changes to the entire image, you have to apply multiple layer masks with each one having a specialize curve or layer settings to get a final image where you wanted it. Personally, I find it much easier just to do the modifications by painting in the particular "zones" in my raw files and making adjustments to those areas based on what I perceive as deficiencies (lack of contrast/exporsure/lack of sharpness, etc, etc, etc). Unless I totally blow the image capture phase, my edits per image generally take less than 5 mins, 10 mins max. OF course I don't do "goofy" things like HDR, or blending exposures, etc, etc.
-
smth wrong with your Horizon?
-
smth wrong with your Horizon?
I dunno. What are you thinking?
-
Lonnie
great image reminds me of a old John Wayne movie you look at it and its gives you the feeling of being there first and saying to yourself wow this is a great valley to maybe build a house.
-
Yes, and it's very, very, very bad form to edit someones image without their permission.. Yes, you've very much touched a never with me, not in the comments, but it altering MY art. And yes, I feel that altering and re-posting my work IS copyright infringement.
My goodness..
Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.
Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!
So while I agree that it would have perhaps been better for Churly to request your permission before editing the uploaded version of your image, I think you are peeing into the wind if you think you have any lawful redress against anyone who does whatever they like with your uploaded images on any site on the net, unless they use them to make money from of course, then you might stand a chance - if you can afford the lawyers and the court time etc.
Because this I am afraid, is the way of the modern world and if this is not something you feel you can live with, then the only other sure fire way to control the copyrighted use of your work, is to not to show it in any way shape or form anywhere on the net.
I have lots of images that I sell commercially that I don't upload here or anywhere else for that matter, but some images I do show here and elsewhere and I also realise that by doing so, I have probably lost all the rights to that particular version of the image, so I make it low res and have a small logo in the bottom.
I recently had what I can only call a fan, talking to me, who then proceeded to show me a slide show of most of my images that I had ever uploaded to various internet sites on their iPhone - yes it was a bit spooky.
I am not trying to provoke you into an argument, as there really is no argument, just trying to say chill out and get used to it. I imagine everyone who posts images here had to go through the same thing when learning to let go and I am sure Churly had only the best of intentions in mind when he did what he did.
Good shot BTW ;)
Dave
-
My goodness..
Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.
Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!
If anyone is using that lawyer, I'd suggest punting him/her w/out a second thought. My wife works in copyright law and IP here in Los Angeles.
The granting of rights to other parties is wholly dependent upon the terms of service of each, individual site, and unless it's specifically stated that you're giving up rights (and you agree to this) you're not giving up any rights.
The act of simply posting a shot to the Internet does NOT grant license to ANY party unless specifically addressed in the TOS.
-
My impression is, that the TOS are there to protect the site management, not individuals using the site from other individuals using the site.
-
My goodness..
Lonnie, if you post to this forum and any other site on the Internet for people to look at and comment on your images, you are automatically foregoing any rights to that uploaded version of the image, so you can only really protect your uploaded images by making sure they are low res files with your copyright text written all over them, and that is about all the copyright protection your work is going to get once you choose to show it on-line.
Here is a quote from a NYC lawyer regarding all our images copyright status once we choose to upload them on-line - ...what happens when you decide to post that picture on the Internet — perhaps on Facebook or Twitter, or some other social network or photo-sharing site? You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph in anyway they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well!
I'm sorry, but that's simply not accurate. Since the image was posted on MY OWN site and I simply re-posted a link to the image here, I have not and did not forfeit my rights via a third party's TOC's.
The granting of rights to other parties is wholly dependent upon the terms of service of each, individual site, and unless it's specifically stated that you're giving up rights (and you agree to this) you're not giving up any rights.
The act of simply posting a shot to the Internet does NOT grant license to ANY party unless specifically addressed in the TOS.
^^^ This. This is why I never DIRECTLY post that sort of image to FB, twitter or instagram (etc). The SMART photographer knows what the TOS/TOC's for those sites say and only posts a LINK to their page where the image can be found. That way, the actual image never resides on their servers and as a result the rights never transfer to those services. Do I lose some views and click because of my "refusal" to do this? Yes, I'm sure of it. Are those few lost clicks worth it to retain control of my images? Yes, 100%.
It's called being business and net savvy in today's image sharing environment.