Learning Thread — Landscape Photography

06/26/2006 01:41:53 AM · #926

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

[I also cropped a bit off the bottom to get a more pleasing composition (one which emphasizes the vast sky a bit more).

Out of curiosity, if you want to emphasize the sky more, why are you giving the buildings such prominence in the processing? The end result is sort of a hybrid. It's well done, and it's dramatic as hell, but it's totally "unreal" looking; especially the intensity of the magentas, and also the unnatural luminosity of the foreground.

I'm not coming down on your version, it's just that the end result seems at odds with the bit of description I quoted above...

R.

Here's a more subtle rendition of the scene, with the magenta muted a bit, contrast masking bringing up the foreground, a little work with green in hue/sat for relief, and a subtle gradient int he top of the sky:

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 01:55:01.

06/26/2006 01:55:20 AM · #927

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
[I also cropped a bit off the bottom to get a more pleasing composition (one which emphasizes the vast sky a bit more).

Out of curiosity, if you want to emphasize the sky more, why are you giving the buildings such prominence in the processing? The end result is sort of a hybrid. It's well done, and it's dramatic as hell, but it's totally "unreal" looking; especially the intensity of the magentas, and also the unnatural luminosity of the foreground.

I'm not coming down on your version, it's just that the end result seems at odds with the bit of description I quoted above...

R.

You're right. Now that I think about it, the foreground is extremely bright for a sunset shot. I guess I was just so worried about getting the foreground "properly exposed" that I didn't realize how unnatural it is. Thanks for pointing that out.

06/26/2006 01:56:55 AM · #928

See my variation appended to my post, splits the difference...

R.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/26/2006 02:05:07 AM · #929

I finally got around to shooting some landscapes. Anybody want to kill these with harsh critiques? :) I tried to process them based on tips found in this thread and elsewhere. As a result they look far different than my older stuff.

06/26/2006 02:10:32 AM · #930

Those are powerful, Yanko. "Hill Country Sunset" has a little too much foreground, I think. I don't think in this shot the horizon is working well smack in the center, because what's in the foreground can't support all that space devoted to it. Try cropping out the lighter flowers, somewhere in that range, and see how it feels. LOVE the first shot, the reflection shot.

Robt.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/26/2006 02:44:14 AM · #931

I'm glad I posted. I thought the horizon was too centered but didn't think about lowering it. Below is the edited version.

I wanted to keep the aspect ratio the same so instead of cropping I duplicated the layer and nudged it down a bit and then I cut out the top and moved it back up. Using the heal brush (such an awesome tool) I was able to fill the gaps. I think that part came out good.

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 02:53:21.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/26/2006 03:18:29 AM · #932

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Justin, look forward to what you come up with. I'm sure you will do well. You are a good photographer.

Thanks for your kind words Steve. I still have some more editing to do but here are a few for now:

You will notice that this series is much more focused on a single subject. In fact, I noticed that as I "focused in" it was much easier to compose the images.

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Remember this... If you don't get dirty, put yourself into a contorted position or put your camera at risk then it is probably not worth the effort anyway.

Hmmm...I did get a few mosquito bites and my pants got wet and muddy...does that count? Actually, now that I think about it, I did all of those things ;) I'm sure I got some strange looks.

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 14:28:48.

soheil

Canon EOS-20D

06/26/2006 05:04:31 AM · #933

Hi, just joined the thread.

Rikki

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/26/2006 05:05:57 AM · #934

I know I posted this on another thread but this one definitely qualifies for this thread as well ;)

06/26/2006 12:05:12 PM · #935

Originally posted by Rikki:

From my BW Yosemite Series

Comments and critiques are welcome.

First and foremost, you did a fantastic job with your Yosemite imagery. Bear_Music is more qualified than I to comment but I thought you captured a nice Ansel Adams feel to your B&Ws. I was in awe.

Yours:

... My Adjusted:

Your image, "The Overlook", I thought was the only exception being a little flat on tones around the waterfall and was a little too dark on the right side. The sky is just fine, it is the ground areas where the tonality is weaker.

I added two little curves adjustment layers to bring out more tones on the ground yet still retain the character of the image. They would both be like standard midtone adjustments to increase contrast (standard S-curve) except that in each curves layer I used the eyedropper tool to select the narrow range of tones from the image itself that I wanted to affect. No surprise they were both way over on the lower left end of the luminosity scale. One was for the tones near the waterfall, the other was for the tones on the right side where it is very dark. I adjusted those tones to bring out more range and detail. I airbrushed out in the layer mask the huge areas outside those specific places that were also affected by the curves adjustment, like the sky, but that I did not want changed.

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 12:11:10.

06/26/2006 02:37:57 PM · #936

Originally posted by stdavidson:

I airbrushed out in the layer mask the huge areas outside those specific places that were also affected by the curves adjustment, like the sky, but that I did not want changed.

Steve, can you please expound on this technique? It had never crossed my mind to use an airbrush on a layer mask to get a more natural feel, but I bet it works great. I would be interested in your procedure (brush size, opacity, etc).

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/26/2006 03:31:39 PM · #937

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by stdavidson:
I airbrushed out in the layer mask the huge areas outside those specific places that were also affected by the curves adjustment, like the sky, but that I did not want changed.

Steve, can you please expound on this technique? It had never crossed my mind to use an airbrush on a layer mask to get a more natural feel, but I bet it works great. I would be interested in your procedure (brush size, opacity, etc).

Oh, Justin... My son... let the almighty Wizard of Oz explain all wisdom... pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain!

There is nothing to it. This is standard stuff with adjustment layers. It is much harder to explain than to do but I will give it a shot.

Every adjustment layer has a layer mask, that usually empty white box on the right side of every adjustment layer you see in the layers pallet. That box determines what part of the effect from that layer is allowed to show through. When all white the effect over the whole image is allowed. If some places are made black then the effect is blocked and will not show through.

Click once on that box and it becomes highlighted. Then go to the tools pallet and make black your foreground color and select a brush. Then if you airbrush directly on the image you will block (or MASK) the effect from showing through everywhere you paint. Black will appear in the formerly all white box now in all the places you paint. Of course, depending on feathering and opacity settings you control the amount of black painted and what gets blocked.

It is as easy as that.

But here is the coolest part. If you make a mistake and block out too much or get sloppy you just switch the brush color to white and you can bring the effect back again. Then you can switch back and forth to paint white or black to make an effect show or hide. You will constantly change the brush size, feathering and opacity depending on your intended effect. Oooooo.... ahhhhhhh... gasp!

It is magic! And it is completely non-destructive!

You are not in Kansas anymore, my son!

Whoops, almost forgot to say... The great and powerful OZ has spoken!

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 15:45:05.

UNCLEBRO

Canon EOS-30D

06/26/2006 03:41:09 PM · #938

what this thread needs,is a "sister" thread that just has the bear/bare essentials in it.
there are so many posts in here that it's difficult to see just the tutorial parts.
I, of course, am not volunterring to extract that information

06/26/2006 03:45:20 PM · #939

Sitting back watching Mr. Davidson do all the heavy lifting...

R.

06/26/2006 03:58:05 PM · #940

Originally posted by pgatt:

Just posted this to the new photo thread but I thought I'd post it here for discussion too.

This is, overall, a lovely image. To a certain extent it seems to me a little lacking in "focus"; not sharpness, but in the sense that it doesn't seem to compel me to any portion of the image in particular, but that's not always a bad thing. However, I am bothered by the fading off of the sky, and to a lesser extent the lack of "depth" in the very foreground, so I decided to experiment with some gradients top and bottom:

It's just a quick stab at it, but it seems to be worth a comparison...

Robt.

06/26/2006 03:59:54 PM · #941

Originally posted by yanko:

I'm glad I posted. I thought the horizon was too centered but didn't think about lowering it. Below is the edited version.

I wanted to keep the aspect ratio the same so instead of cropping I duplicated the layer and nudged it down a bit and then I cut out the top and moved it back up. Using the heal brush (such an awesome tool) I was able to fill the gaps. I think that part came out good.

That's very nice work, there :-) Amazing what a difference dropping the horizon just a smidge makes, isn't it?

R.

06/26/2006 06:44:52 PM · #942

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

I still have some more editing to do but here are a few for now:

You will notice that this series is much more focused on a single subject. In fact, I noticed that as I "focused in" it was much easier to compose the images.

Originally posted by stdavidson:
Remember this... If you don't get dirty, put yourself into a contorted position or put your camera at risk then it is probably not worth the effort anyway.

Hmmm...I did get a few mosquito bites and my pants got wet and muddy...does that count? Actually, now that I think about it, I did all of those things ;) I'm sure I got some strange looks.

Any physical injury and being reported as a public nuisance both count toward a successful photo outing.

Like the new water images. They are more purposeful studies of the subjects. I miss babbling brook picture. They present a never ending variety for photo studies, like flowers. LOL! But we don't have much open running water down here.

The new tree trunk one has so much finely sharpened tiny detail that it comes across looking "busy" to me. Almost hard to look at. Don't have any decent suggestions either.

06/26/2006 06:48:26 PM · #943

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
I still have some more editing to do but here are a few for now:

You will notice that this series is much more focused on a single subject. In fact, I noticed that as I "focused in" it was much easier to compose the images.

Originally posted by stdavidson:
Remember this... If you don't get dirty, put yourself into a contorted position or put your camera at risk then it is probably not worth the effort anyway.

Hmmm...I did get a few mosquito bites and my pants got wet and muddy...does that count? Actually, now that I think about it, I did all of those things ;) I'm sure I got some strange looks.

Any physical injury and being reported as a public nuisance both count toward a successful photo outing.

Like the new water images. They are more purposeful studies of the subjects. I miss babbling brook picture. They present a never ending variety for photo studies, like flowers. LOL! But we don't have much open running water down here.

The new tree trunk one has so much finely sharpened tiny detail that it comes across looking "busy" to me. Almost hard to look at. Don't have any decent suggestions either.

What the man said... I love his heavy lifting... The tree trunk shot is hopeless; the water shots are much stronger than your earlier examples.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2006 07:14:34 PM · #944

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by stdavidson:
I airbrushed out in the layer mask the huge areas outside those specific places that were also affected by the curves adjustment, like the sky, but that I did not want changed.

Steve, can you please expound on this technique? It had never crossed my mind to use an airbrush on a layer mask to get a more natural feel, but I bet it works great. I would be interested in your procedure (brush size, opacity, etc).

Oh, Justin... My son... let the almighty Wizard of Oz explain all wisdom... pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain!

There is nothing to it. This is standard stuff with adjustment layers. It is much harder to explain than to do but I will give it a shot.

Every adjustment layer has a layer mask, that usually empty white box on the right side of every adjustment layer you see in the layers pallet. That box determines what part of the effect from that layer is allowed to show through. When all white the effect over the whole image is allowed. If some places are made black then the effect is blocked and will not show through.

Click once on that box and it becomes highlighted. Then go to the tools pallet and make black your foreground color and select a brush. Then if you airbrush directly on the image you will block (or MASK) the effect from showing through everywhere you paint. Black will appear in the formerly all white box now in all the places you paint. Of course, depending on feathering and opacity settings you control the amount of black painted and what gets blocked.

It is as easy as that.

But here is the coolest part. If you make a mistake and block out too much or get sloppy you just switch the brush color to white and you can bring the effect back again. Then you can switch back and forth to paint white or black to make an effect show or hide. You will constantly change the brush size, feathering and opacity depending on your intended effect. Oooooo.... ahhhhhhh... gasp!

It is magic! And it is completely non-destructive!

You are not in Kansas anymore, my son!

Whoops, almost forgot to say... The great and powerful OZ has spoken!

Oh, I already know how to use layer masks...what I was interested in was the fact that you mentioned using an "airbrush" on the mask. Did you mean that literally? I know PS has an airbrush buried somewhere in the brush dialog box, so I was just curious.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2006 07:15:31 PM · #945

The airbrush tool is just to the left of the paintbrush in the Tools Pallette.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2006 07:16:44 PM · #946

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The airbrush tool is just to the left of the paintbrush in the Tools Pallette.

Only in older versions of photoshop. I think PS7 was when it changed.

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 19:17:50.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2006 07:18:13 PM · #947

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
The airbrush tool is just to the left of the paintbrush in the Tools Pallette.

Only in older version of photoshop.

Oh, that's what I use most of the time ... try clicking and holding on the paintbrush then -- they've taken to "stacking" more tools in a recursive button.

06/26/2006 07:19:33 PM · #948

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
The airbrush tool is just to the left of the paintbrush in the Tools Pallette.

Only in older version of photoshop.

Oh, that's what I use most of the time ... try clicking and holding on the paintbrush then -- they've taken to "stacking" more tools in a recursive button.

I think it's now available as a selectable brush, not as a separate tool. I only have PS Elements on hand so I'm not positive.

06/26/2006 07:29:11 PM · #949

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

You mean I typed all that for nothing? Dang! LOL! You are right. That little icon with curly thingy to the right of where "Flow:" is set is the airbrush toggle. I actually didn't use that. I'm not that sophisticated an artist. I always think when I set brush opacity to about 10% and go over the same area twice I'm airbrushing. Maybe I should play with that, ya think? LOL!