Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: duboisst on January 06, 2015, 08:19:06 am
-
My first Cityscape set. 2nd Panorama shot from Weehawken, NJ on 12/27/2014
-
Works for me, cool blue lights in the water reflection.
-
HDR on steroids? Too strong for my taste. Do you have a more restrained version? The content of the image looks fine but not the rendering.
-
Interesting. I'm not sure about the color/HDR, but, to my eyes, nothing seems horizontal: not the clouds, not the water level, and not the city scape. (Probably too much coffee this morning.)
-
HDR on steroids? Too strong for my taste. Do you have a more restrained version? The content of the image looks fine but not the rendering.
The processing does not work for me.
Is this the real sky or an replaced one.
And yes the content looks fine.
-
Crazy sky! Love it!
-
Yes I have another one.. no HDR at all.. I hate HDR and am a purist.. I'll post the wider one that was later in the morning on this day with less contrast. I just hate the restraints this website does on images. Panoramas need to be larger then 1024X I and just about everybody at work use this for their backgrounds. The detail pops at higher resolutions. I guess I need my own website now that I'm taking photography seriously again after 25 years.
-
Thanks! as you know it means a lot to hear it.
-Steve
-
Thanks Dwayne,
Coming from you that's a lot!
-Steve
-
I appreciate your response; I find myself looking at photos now and wondering if the backgrounds, foregrounds, skies have been replaced, if they are HDR or not. If the moon has been dropped in. Other artist do it more and more often, I think there's nothing wrong with it except I can't help but feel deceived in some way. I have recently returned to photography and have decided I will try to mirror what my eye sees and only adjust the sliders in post production to my taste. Nothing I post has anything added. I may heal-out a fence post in the lower edge of a panorama or crop the image but I don't see myself ever adding anything to what nature and the available light provided. What I seek is the sharpest details, using the best equipment I can afford and am working hard to on techniques to reduce as much post-production as possible.
Again thanks for your comment and I completely understand why you feel that way.
-
If you use Lightroom, try to begin with default settings.
Simply adjust exposure to have no clipping.
You'll obtain something very natural.
Sometimes you need to increase/decrease contrast.
As Jeff Schewe (and others) said, follow the proposed order for the corrections (top to bottom).
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
-
I will admit first off that the colour are rather too 'intense' for my liking and I am willing to accept that this is the way you saw it at the time.
However (you could tell there was one of those coming, right?), I think that we see a scene that makes us go 'WOW' and so we take a picture. When we get back to the computer and open the image what we have is a straight image with none of the emotional/environmental ties that hit us when we saw the scene au naturel. And a way of recreating that 'WOW' factor can be to (inadvertently or deliberately) process the image to recreate the 'WOW' by another means.
Maybe that's all a bit too philosophical a point for this particular post but it is how it strikes me: I think thierry's approach is quite a measured one.
-
Mind to post the unedited one?
-
No problem with the colors as I've seen sky's like this often on the coast when the sun dips below them. a little oversharp for my taste but otherwise fine. As has been mentioned, there is an illusion that it's tilted right because of the the angle of the shoreline and clouds. I'd be tempted to work the aspect ratio a tad to correct it.
-
... there is an illusion that it's tilted right because of the the angle of the shoreline and clouds...
Not an illusion, and not because of the shoreline, etc. Verticals are not vertical.
-
As requested.. All sliders at 0 and non-cropped
-
Now to me that is more what I would expect (as a photo).
The sky in he first post is, ot me, quitebelievable even given some of the spectacular skies I have seen over the years - the part I am less comfortable with is the buildings. The eye-brain combination has a remarkable ability to adjust its 'exposure' in different parts of the same scene and blend them together but in trying to replicate it here I think you have hit the limits of the dynamic range the camera is able to deliver when recovering such deep shadows so it is unable to show a lot of textures the eye would see on real life.
This is not to criticise the photo as a photo but is why the rendition in the first post does not do it for me and, as has been said, it is about personal taste.
Thank you for posting the second version anyway - not many people would and it has proved interesting.
-
As requested.. All sliders at 0 and non-cropped
Halelluya!
If that is what you can get straight out of camera, you should be legally prohibited from post-processing ;)
-
Haha Slobodan you are too kind! thanks!
-
You are welcome, and thanks again for the feedback.
-Steve
-
Aside from the fact that the image is ever so slightly not horizontal, I am going to go completely against the grain of some of the comments and say that this is a great rendition that is maybe a little over processed. Toned down a little it would be great!
The posted original is boring IMHO!
This is what sells!!
-
Thank you so much for your feedback!
-Stephen
-
...maybe a little over processed. Toned down a little it would be great!
This is one of those cases where "a little" makes a huge difference ;)
-
If I was forced to choose between the post-processed version you posted first, and the original unprocessed version, I'd take the post-processed version you posted first, hands down. It is a striking image that you should be proud of.
That said, I would be inclined to tone down the saturation, and not boost the shadows so much. IMHO that would make it look more natural, while still preserving its striking effect.
-
Thanks Jerry I'll try your suggestions for a printable version. But I am going preserve the post-processed version because I have never seen anything like it and I love it at full resolution for my desktop backgrounds. I also increased the shadows on purpose. I think it's amazing that it's possible to do while preserving detail. You nailed it!
Thank you and I'm glad you agree with my vision well mostly. ;)
--Stephen