Opinions if you have one... - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/10/2007 08:49:04 PM · #1

I have been tearing myself up over some basic stuff lately and not sure why. My current 'mood' started with the Harsh Environments challenge. What I would like your opinion on is the processing done to the photo below. I am not interested in if you like the photo or not; I don't care what vote you may or may not have given it. I am strictly interested in your opinion on the level/amount of processing.

Too much? Too little? Seeing the original is the processed version still photographic in nature?

Original: cropped, resized, saved for web and uploaded.

Processed/submitted version. Three layers - one for the trees, adjusted for black; one for the fog, contrast; one for the grasses/growth, levels, contrast, sat. All were run through Neat Image and after final merge, additional layer of just the trees in the background/top of the pic which was run through NI again to make the detail not so clear.

I know it was the Expert editing rules, but everything was Advanced legal. It was very windy and raining fairly hard when I took the shot. The crops are not exactly the same, but close enough.

Thanks.

Message edited by author 2007-01-10 20:53:20.

Apple iPhone 5

01/10/2007 08:56:16 PM · #2

The original looks quite surreal, and more like a watercolour than a photo.

I think the post-processing really enhanced it. The problem may have been that it was submitted to an 'expert editing' challenge, and voters *assumed* you'd gone over the top with the processing.

01/10/2007 09:03:12 PM · #3

I am not worried or complaining about the standing in the challenge or how people voted/interpreted it. It just happens to be the photo that started my current quandary. My biggest question is the one in bold. My question/opinion sought is just on the processing, hence the posting of the original for comparison.

Message edited by author 2007-01-10 21:04:46.

boysetsfire

Canon EOS-5D

01/10/2007 09:03:14 PM · #4

For me as an image it looks a "little" too saturated but it depends what YOUR intensions were, also the fact that it was in an expert editing challenge how could it be OVER processed.
I really like the original did you try in in a B/w or B/w inverted that would would look kinda cool. (at work so cant give it a go)

nick

edit:
just read your last post, yes it is.

Message edited by author 2007-01-10 21:04:18.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/10/2007 09:09:23 PM · #5

Originally posted by boysetsfire:

I really like the original did you try in in a B/w or B/w inverted that would would look kinda cool. (at work so cant give it a go)

nick

edit:
just read your last post, yes it is.

Actually, yes I did and with the rain the noise was so bad in b/w that NI wouldn't touch it. I tried the conversion a few ways and even after NI I tried and a lot of noise came right back. It was literally a downpour when I took this shot. I was holding a newspaper over my head/camera with one hand and the camera with the other.

Tuckersmom

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1

01/10/2007 09:10:00 PM · #6

okay, here's my opinion just on the processing. The original looks a little bland to me. Not that I need to see things "pop" all the time but it seems to be between surreal and the next step after that (if that makes sense). I like the editing on the second one as far as the sky and the middle portion of the picture goes. The bottom portion, in my eyes is just a little oversaturated. Maybe take that portion down a notch or two or maybe tone down the reddishness some? Hope that helps.

Curious

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

01/10/2007 09:10:06 PM · #7

The processed one is still photographic in nature.

I personally would tone down the processing a little bit though as some of the colour in the sky looks a bit flat (especially the cyans) and lost some of its depth.

I think your edits are a positive move just gone a bit too far.

Canon EOS-20D

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

01/10/2007 09:10:46 PM · #8

Yeah, I like it with a bit less saturation as well, just because it's kind of an austere image and I like more muted colors to go with it. Is it still photographic in nature? That's a difficult question. Does it still resemble the shot you started with? Yes. Both have something of a painterly feeling to them, though and perhaps aren't what we're typically used to seeing come from a camera. (I did really like this, even though you said you didn't care.)

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/10/2007 09:25:45 PM · #9

your post-processing looks slightly over done, IMHO
i mean, the colours looked too saturated and fake, and that plasticky smoothness appears... well, too plasticky.

but to answer your question on whether the processed image is still photographic in nature; well I'd say yes. Tho i'd also say it's getting near to becoming what's called digital art. again, just my opinion