| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2006 11:38:43 PM · #1 |
Took this the other day and I cant seem to do anything with the sky, it lost all the detail it seems. Ive tried layering to adjust the levels, when I get the detail back they are way to pixelated even though I neat imaged it. Any thoughts on what I can do to this?
 |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:16:46 AM · #2 |
Hi Kivet,
I love the shot.
I'm not sure how far you want to go with bringing out some drama in the sky. Here's a quick tweek. I just used a combo of levels and neatimage, but I ran it back through Neatimage several times in small steps.
 |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:51:59 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
Any thoughts on what I can do to this? |
A more dramatic approach? (taken a bit to the extreme)
Created a new layer via copy and did a white balance adjust on it, then erased the foreground back to original. While erasing, invert it to see what was missed, erase the missed sections and invert back. While I had the sky only selected (non-erased part in the layer, I worked on the sky's contrast and levels, then ran CS2 noise reduction lightly on it. Flattened the image, new layer via copy, selective bump on black levels, adjusted red & yellow levels, flattened. Ran the history brush over the foreground & windmill to bring them back. Zoomed in close and lightly cloned out pixelization remains along edge of mountain. New layer via copy and added a light soft filter, erasing the mountain and foreground to bring them back. Flattened again, light sharpening of some details, and light sponge tool in desaturation on the mountain's peak area to drop down the amount of yellow in it.
Well something like that anyway...
Love the shot btw!
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 00:53:23.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 01:01:39 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by Kivet:
Any thoughts on what I can do to this? |
A more dramatic approach? (taken a bit to the extreme)
Created a new layer via copy and did a white balance adjust on it, then erased the foreground back to original. While erasing, invert it to see what was missed, erase the missed sections and invert back. While I had the sky only selected (non-erased part in the layer, I worked on the sky's contrast and levels, then ran CS2 noise reduction lightly on it. Flattened the image, new layer via copy, selective bump on black levels, adjusted red & yellow levels, flattened. Ran the history brush over the foreground & windmill to bring them back. Zoomed in close and lightly cloned out pixelization remains along edge of mountain. New layer via copy and added a light soft filter, erasing the mountain and foreground to bring them back. Flattened again, light sharpening of some details, and light sponge tool in desaturation on the mountain's peak area to drop down the amount of yellow in it.
Well something like that anyway...
Love the shot btw! |
Ya dude, you just kinda rocked it to the next level, Great shot Kivet and the Edit BradP threw on it knocks it outta the park!
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 01:24:20 AM · #5 |
Very fast and sloppy edit
Simply broke the picture into three parts, the sky, the foreground and whole picture.
Did auto levels on all three separately and used foreground at 80% transparency, then flattened image..
A lot more could have been done and a lot more carefully.
This took less than 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 01:53:32 AM · #6 |
Hi Kivet, love the shot! Had lots of fun creating these:
  
Hope you like 'em :)
G
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 11:41:12 AM · #7 |
Thanks for the great edits everyone.
Gringo, seems very simple but effective. I had fun playing around with this, it was just too perfect a shot to miss.
Wow Brad, if you need more shots to edit I have acouple I could loan you :) Im not even sure I can do all that with my GIMP!
ggbudge I like what you did with the forground in the second and the color of the third one.
Ombra I cant click on the thumbnail but it looks good from here!
It seems I just need to learn a bit more about layering, do you ever get to the point where you get to stop trying to learn everything at once? Anyone know if you can do noise reduction in GIMP?
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 11:46:15. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 11:45:45 AM · #8 |
Wow! I suck at Photoshop!
:-O
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 11:48:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Wow! I suck at Photoshop!
:-O |
Um....sure you do... Love the profile pic btw. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:10:44 PM · #10 |
Here's a different approach, the selection is a bit sketchy due to small size:
1. Did a contrast mask for light areas and dark areas, multiplied the darks and screened the lights to extend tonal range
2. Selected for the dark areas in foreground and did levels on that
3. Selected for sky and did levels on that
4. Color-balanced the whole to a bluer rendition
5. Neat imaged
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:17:48 PM · #11 |
Next question: and I mean this honestly, not trying to incite a riot...
How many of these edited versions would be legal in an advanced challenge?
This thread has crystalized for me just how importaint the editing can be... I think that a good photo will get you to 5.5, but the editing gets you to 6.5.
Hmm.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:24:33 PM · #12 |
Probably all of them legal in advanced. Mine certainly is.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 12:38:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
4. Color-balanced the whole to a bluer rendition |
Phew! - I thought you said 'blur'. Now that would've been asking for trouble... :) |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:12:18 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by livitup:
How many of these edited versions would be legal in an advanced challenge? |
Everything I did would be legal in advanced editing.
The version I was playing with that blurred the windmill wasn't.
Or would it....
j/k
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 02:33:47 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Kivet:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Wow! I suck at Photoshop!
:-O |
Um....sure you do... Love the profile pic btw. |
Just in case you're admiring the photographic & post-processing skill of my profile pic... I did neither, Joey Lawrence took the shot and did the PP. I just stole if from him without his permission. Here's the original.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:13:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by livitup:
Next question: and I mean this honestly, not trying to incite a riot...
How many of these edited versions would be legal in an advanced challenge?
This thread has crystalized for me just how importaint the editing can be... I think that a good photo will get you to 5.5, but the editing gets you to 6.5.
Hmm. |
All 3 edits I did would be legal in advanced editing. I magic wanded the clouds with varying tolerances (2 layers created that way in normal blend mode, just varied the opacity), auto levels on the base layer to bring out the blue. Dodged and burned the sky to get to what it is. I also used shadows/highlights to bring out the details in the foreground. I may have done other things, but nothing that would be considered illegal under the advanced editing rules.
If I can remember anything else I did, I'll update this post. :)
George
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 12:50:03 AM EDT.
