| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2006 12:51:47 PM · #851 |
Just stopping in to say I'm in the middle of an extreme deadline on a massive editing job; a non-fiction book on the rape of the Greeks by the Christians, of all things, and I don't have time for a few days to shepherd this thread properly. I'm still looking in, and nodding my head in approval as y'all soldier on without me :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 12:59:15 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... I'm in the middle of an extreme deadline on a massive editing job; a non-fiction book on the rape of the Greeks by the Christians... |
I've heard that Greek raping can be a full time job.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 01:18:02 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... I'm in the middle of an extreme deadline on a massive editing job; a non-fiction book on the rape of the Greeks by the Christians... |
I've heard that Greek raping can be a full time job. |
It sure as hell seems to have been during the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, but it's the Greek civilization the Christians were raping. Plenty of people got raped too, but that's not the point of the book :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 05:40:49 PM · #854 |
IMO, shooting in the woods can end up giving you a result similar to the flat light examples that we worked on earlier in the thread. The biggest thing seems to be a loss of definite shadows and highlights that our eyes can see but the camera does not pick up. I would also love to know what camera settings, if any, can compensate for that.
I took the liberty of trying an edit on one of your shots to see if adjusting shadow/highlights would make a difference. Here is the result (my steps are listed in Photographers comments):
Message edited by author 2006-06-11 17:42:04. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 06:27:37 PM · #855 |
Most of the images I've seen of just wooded areas, not of something else in a wooded area, are studies of rhythm, depth and light. The regular repeating pattern of similar trees and the interplay of light and shadow are what I've seen most often in woodland images. However, the interplay of light and shadows brings its own problems ...
Originally posted by Prism:
... The biggest thing seems to be a loss of definite shadows and highlights that our eyes can see but the camera does not pick up. I would also love to know what camera settings, if any, can compensate for that. ... |
The loss of detail is from the large dynamic range between highlight and shadow. Our eyes can see a much greater range of tones at one time than the camera can record. Unfortunately the smaller range of tones the camera can record is a limitation of the equipment and as such there are no settings that will overcome it.
You are however on the right track in combatting this problem. The Shadow/Highlights tool (or contrast masking as described earlier in this thread) are great at bringing the tonal range of the scene into what the medium can handle.
The next step up is to shoot in RAW and convert it twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. This is a bit more complicated than just adjusting one image. It requires the two conversions be layered and blended into one image in PS, perhaps with tonal adjustments done during and after the blending. The reward for the added complexity is greater dynamic range with better quality detail in the shadows and highlights.
The most advanced is to take multiple exposures at different exposure settings and blend them together in PS. This adds the complexity of having to line the images up and quite possibly deciding what parts of each exposure is to be kept and which parts to mask out. The reward is the greatest control over dynamic range and the potential for the greatest detail in the shadows and highlights.
David
|
|
|
|
06/11/2006 07:29:18 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by David.C:
The next step up is to shoot in RAW and convert it twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows. This is a bit more complicated than just adjusting one image. It requires the two conversions be layered and blended into one image in PS, perhaps with tonal adjustments done during and after the blending. The reward for the added complexity is greater dynamic range with better quality detail in the shadows and highlights. |
That brings up an interesting point. Is it legal in DPC to combine two different takes of the same RAW image? Obviously, outside of DPC, anything goes, but I have always wondered that, and have not found any exact reference to it in the rules. They seem to be generally written to just processing in JPEG format. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 07:58:47 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by traquino98:
That brings up an interesting point. Is it legal in DPC to combine two different takes of the same RAW image? |
I believe the answer is yes in Advanced challenges, no in Basic challenges. |
|
|
|
06/13/2006 02:50:10 PM · #858 |
Just a couple pictures from Wolf Creek hike with Louddog:
 ... ... ... ...
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 15:53:00.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2006 08:05:31 PM · #859 |
Beautiful shots, Steve! But shouldn't you have made Louddog climb up that cliff so you could get a people in the landscape shot? (j/k) 8P
I think I like the second one best.
Message edited by author 2006-06-13 23:35:14. |
|
|
|
06/14/2006 10:55:17 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by traquino98:
That brings up an interesting point. Is it legal in DPC to combine two different takes of the same RAW image? |
I believe the answer is yes in Advanced challenges, no in Basic challenges. |
Correct, what General said. It's perfectly legal in advanced to use two raw conversions on a separate layer and delete and/or mask portions.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 01:47:34 AM · #861 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
 |
Left you quite a lengthy comment on this one, Steve.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 11:27:05 AM · #862 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
|
Left you quite a lengthy comment on this one, Steve. |
Thanks. Funny you should mention his shirt. It is actually overexposed, bright white. I did not like that so changed the color, probably should have went with an earth tone. ;)
You are absolutely right about the framing. It should be cropped much tighter to remove the "emptiness" on the left and top of the frame. I will do that.
Interesting skies are not easy to find out here, especially since we've been in a many years long drought here in the west. The picture was taken in mid-afternoon which does not help. This is a sunrise/sunset location for sure. There are interesting subjects both west and east from this location.
The picture was taken with a polarizer at about 5,000 ft elevation which is the source for deep blue. No gradient in post. I'd probably only use a gradient for artistic purposes, not for general use.
----------------
Recropped, shirt change, resharpened... this "better"? LOL!
Message edited by author 2006-06-15 12:04:12.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 12:35:14 PM · #863 |
Your help, Please!
I could not buy a decent score in a challenge right now if my life depended on it.
Since this discssion is quiet at the moment I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask your assistance in a little experiment. I have pictures I took at Silver Creek Falls in Oregon that I would like you to help me post process. I have uploaded untouched, full sized, out-of-camera pictures here:
//www.pbase.com/azleader/silvercreek
What I'd like, if any of you have time, is simply for you to pick and post process one, then list here the steps you took and why you took them. I picked generic ones to allow some creativity.
My hope is this will stimulate my post processing juices and raise it to a higher level. Thanks to any who participate. :)
Message edited by author 2006-06-15 13:02:41.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 12:36:04 PM · #864 |
I'm not a fan of the turquoise shirt either. I have since burned it!
Personally I would have liked to see the photo a little more from the side because the camera I was using might actually be an item of interest in the photo if you could see it better.
It's the same as this (but mine has a much better lens)
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 12:58:20 PM · #865 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm not a fan of the turquoise shirt either. I have since burned it! |
I "burned" that shirt in my rework on that picture. Now it is brown. :)
Message edited by author 2006-06-15 12:58:51.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 04:17:32 PM · #866 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Recropped, shirt change, resharpened... this "better"? LOL!
|
Much better, though I probably wouldn't have cut quite so much off the top.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 04:32:39 PM · #867 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Much better, though I probably wouldn't have cut quite so much off the top. |
As my childhood barber reassured me, it'll grow back in a week or two ... : ) |
|
|
|
06/15/2006 05:29:24 PM · #868 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
What I'd like, if any of you have time, is simply for you to pick and post process one, then list here the steps you took and why you took them. I picked generic ones to allow some creativity.
My hope is this will stimulate my post processing juices and raise it to a higher level. Thanks to any who participate. :) |
Here's my take on this. If I get more time layer I might attempt one of the others.
Steps (gimp):
-duplicated layer, desaturated top layer, inverted, overlay, gaussian blur, reduced top opacity to taste (darkened highlights and brightened shadows - contrast masking?)
-adjusted levels
-converted to b/w by mixing blue and red channels together.
-cropped
-created 4 new overlay layers and placed black-to-transparent gradients on all 4 sides (burned sides in)
-sharpened
-resized to 770px high
-new layer, 50% gray fill, set to overlay. Painted black to burn, white to dodge, etc.
-sharpened
-border 15 px
-save for web
Edit: Why I did all this:
I converted to B/W because of the harsh lighting on the trees at left. I cropped quite a bit off the right because I didn't like the composition. My first procedure (not sure if you would consider this "contrast masking" or not) was done to deal with some of the lost detail in the rocks as well as to bring down the highlights. My dodge and burn layer was done to add contrast and emphasize certain portions of the image more than others. I realize I should have done this before I resized, but I didn't think of doing it until later ;)
Some of the steps may be out of order but that's basicly all I did. Questions/comments welcome.
Message edited by author 2006-06-15 17:41:46.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 05:38:00 PM · #869 |
(8X10 - 1:1.25)... (8X12 - 1:1.5)
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Much better, though I probably wouldn't have cut quite so much off the top. |
Good point. An unstated guidline I follow in cropping all my images is to make them standard crops for printing as I did with this one. Above is the standard crop that fits your suggestion better. The web version makes the second one look smaller but it would not be in a real print.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 05:45:22 PM · #870 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
(8X12 - 1:1.5) |
MUCH better. Looking back and forth, just at the thumbnails, this composition is MUCH stronger IMO. Great re-edit.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 06:06:37 PM · #871 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Here's my take on this.
Steps (gimp):
-duplicated layer, desaturated top layer, inverted, overlay, gaussian blur, reduced top opacity to taste (darkened highlights and brightened shadows - contrast masking?)
-adjusted levels
-converted to b/w by mixing blue and red channels together.
-cropped
-created 4 new overlay layers and placed black-to-transparent gradients on all 4 sides (burned sides in)
-sharpened
-resized to 770px high
-new layer, 50% gray fill, set to overlay. Painted black to burn, white to dodge, etc.
-sharpened
-border 15 px
-save for web
Edit: Why I did all this:
I converted to B/W because of the harsh lighting on the trees at left. I cropped quite a bit off the right because I didn't like the composition. My first procedure (not sure if you would consider this "contrast masking" or not) was done to deal with some of the lost detail in the rocks as well as to bring down the highlights. My dodge and burn layer was done to add contrast and emphasize certain portions of the image more than others. I realize I should have done this before I resized, but I didn't think of doing it until later ;)
Some of the steps may be out of order but that's basicly all I did. Questions/comments welcome. |
Thanks... you did a great job with the image.
This are not really done much different in GIMP than PS. You use the same dodge and burn method I do and for the same reasons.
We might call your contrast masking method "common" to distinguish it from DPC's contrast masking method which is different. Your method is the one most commonly encountered when you search for contrast masking methods on the Net.
Sharpening turned out very nice. I notice you did it in two phases, one before resizing and one after. Could you please elaborate more on the settings, procedure and reasoning?
You added gradients on all 4 sides, I presume as an artistic effect to make the center stand out more, but I don't see much. Could you expand on what you did and how that improved the image?
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 06:58:00 PM · #872 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Sharpening turned out very nice. I notice you did it in two phases, one before resizing and one after. Could you please elaborate more on the settings, procedure and reasoning? |
Yes, usually I sharpen before resizing and again after. Before resizing, I always use a larger radius, usually '1'. Then, after resizing, I usually use a radius of about '.3'. The amount for both is usually around ~60% in PS terms.
Now I'm not sure if this is better than sharpening only on the web version or not. It's just how I learned, and I know quite a few people here do it.
Originally posted by stdavidson:
You added gradients on all 4 sides, I presume as an artistic effect to make the center stand out more, but I don't see much. Could you expand on what you did and how that improved the image? |
Yeah, I do this on most landscapes, especially B/W landscapes, to more fully contain the image. The effect, however, is really subtle (I always reduce the opacity of the layer quite a bit) and I'm actually glad that you couldn't tell.
Stay tuned, I'm uploading another edit as we speak.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 07:32:11 PM · #873 |
All right, here's another. Couldn't decide between the color/BW:
 
Editing involved "common contrast masking," levels (sometimes of the person separately, as needed), sharpening before and after resize, cropping, and extensive dodging and burning via an overlay layer.
For the color version, I wanted a muted color effect, and I mixed three layers, a color background version, a duplicated background on "multiply," and another duplicate background, this one desaturated and set to "color." I varied the opacities of the top two layers, with the multiply layer probably around 30% or so and the b/w layer less than 10%. I can't say that I had a specific effect in mind when I started blending these layers, but I just decided to mess around a bit and I liked the result. This was my attempt to achieve a muted color look.
After the color version was saved, I took it into PS elements to convert it to B/W. I used two hue/saturation adjustment layers, the top one set to "normal" with saturation brought down to 0, and the one underneath set to "color" with a tweaked hue to alter the conversion.
My aim in both versions was to emphasize the person the most, making it a sort of environmental portrait (as opposed to a lanscape with a person). One of the steps I took to achieve this was "dodging" his face, for example. I also utilized a tight crop.
Comments/suggestions welcomed.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 07:35:51 PM · #874 |
When I get more time later I'm going to experiment with sharpening some more. I propose 4 test edits - The first two resizing to web in small steps, the second two resizing in one step. Within both of those I'll sharpen before and after in one, and only after on the other. I'll post my result later and see which looks the best.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2006 09:16:52 PM · #875 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
All right, here's another. Couldn't decide between the color/BW:
|
Very interesting work, Justin. Like what you have done. Need to experiment myself. :)
|
|
