Help/Suggestions with Landscape shot please

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 05:25:12 AM · #1

Hi All,

I find it difficult to get interesting landscape shot, so am going to be making more of an effort to improve in this area.

I went out with a couple of work friends two evenings ago with the intention of shooting a nice full moon with the local lighthouse though ended up with the below shot as my favourite of the evening.

Apart from an obvious bump of saturation during RAW conversionand a bit of perspective correction, this is pretty much as shot. The light on the pier entrance arch is a bit distracting - I might try and clone it out.
How did I do?
What could be improved?

Personally, I feel this is by far my best Landscape/Seascape shot to date.

klstover

Panasonic DMC-FZ8

05/03/2007 05:45:03 AM · #2

Gosh that's a great shot.

Yeah, cloning out the light on the left would be good. I am trying really hard to come up with other suggestions for improvement. Possibly cloning out the little tiny lump at the top of the water line just to the right of the middle, as well as the tiny curved lines behind the bridge. But those aren't distracting elements at all, unlike the light.

I really love the colors - they're dramatic without being unreal (which in landscape shots can really make it so much better in my opinion). I love the symmetry.. with shots like this if it's not perfectly balanced then it looks weird to my eyes but you got it right. I love the placement of the arch - the extreme placement to the left works well I think with the placement of the horizontal lines.

So yes. Great job I think :-)

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 05:54:21 AM · #3

Thank You Kelly.

I did over-do the colours at first, though this version is much better - more believable I think!

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2007 07:33:45 AM · #4

The "detail" in the top portion of the bridge looks to be over sharpened. This is evidenced by the sky (which you can see through the detail) being brighter than the rest of the sky above and below it.

You can use the History Brush in Photoshop to "spot reduce" the sharpening on an image (on DPC, this is not legal in basic editing).

Using this image, here's an example of what I'm talking about: Right before you do your sharpening step, set the source for the history brush by clicking on the little square to the left of the last completed step in your history palette. Then do your sharpening. Then, using the history brush at about 50%, paint over top portion of the bridge.

Play with that idea and see what you think.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 08:01:02 AM · #5

Originally posted by dwterry:

I'll have a look at this technique, though this has not been sharpened at all in photoshop... Just a touch during raw conversion. I tried a bit of USM but it did some funny things around the detail of the fence on the pier, so I discarded it as it is quite sharp as-is.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2007 08:09:12 AM · #6

Yeah, the "funny things" USM does is exactly what I'd expect in those small details.

So what you might do instead is... reduce the amount of sharpening in the raw converter and apply USM in photoshop instead. And then use the history brush to reduce it in the details. This gives you a little "finer control" over the sharpening since the raw converter only has the option to sharpen the entire image (or not).

Message edited by author 2007-05-03 08:09:26.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 11:15:27 AM · #7

I think to be honest, the sky was fading from dark to light into the sunset colours - It is just the angle I shot this makes it look like it has been affected by sharpening. I'll check the original when I go home...

Thanks for the tip though :-)

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/03/2007 12:20:59 PM · #8

I agree with dwterry about the haloing against the sky around the silhouetted pier and the need to correct it in your image.

What I find curious is that the haloing looks a different than I'm used to seeing caused only by oversharpening; it is wider. You sure you did not do any Shadow/Highlight and/or HDR like processing with it?

In any regard, removing the haloing can be done in a variety of ways and the history brush is one of them. Another method would be to duplicate the layer before sharpening then adding a mask to the duplicated, sharpened layer and masking out the distracting halo. That method is non-destructive. A third method would be to simply clone out the haloing on the duplicated layer or, if you have Photoshop CS or newer clone it out on its own layer. In essense, cloning on a new, separate layer is non-destructive to.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

05/03/2007 12:30:55 PM · #9

It's always hard to comment on composition when you aren't there because we don't know what lies outside the canvas.

The colors are excellent. The sillouette is nice and black. I do not like sillouettes that are half-hearted (that is, we get just a tiny bit of detail).

Yes, 100% for sure clone out that light.

I would consider the following for the composition:

Can you elongate? The crop is not square, but approaching. I'd like to see a longer aspect ratio. That will accentuate the lines of the pier. If this is without crop or you have objects that detract to the right, then crop some off the bottom. I do not think you need to show where the pilings enter the water. Try cropping just above.

I wonder about different POVs. So this is where it's hard because I'm not there. Anyway, the current composition is very centered vertically. You do have some offsetting of the structure on the left, but it is too far to the left to provide a traditional rule of thirds. I'm pretty sure you did that because of the shape of the pier on that side so there may not be much you can do there. It would be nice to try to get higher so you push the sillouette down. At least I'd have to see it. Maybe it would be worse after all.

Just some musings.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 01:14:08 PM · #10

Originally posted by stdavidson:

What I find curious is that the haloing looks a different than I'm used to seeing caused only by oversharpening; it is wider. You sure you did not do any Shadow/Highlight and/or HDR like processing with it?

I did adjust Highlights and Shadows in Raw Conversion, yes.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 01:18:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Can you elongate? The crop is not square, but approaching. I'd like to see a longer aspect ratio. That will accentuate the lines of the pier.

Crop was to fit desktop, but there is only a little more width as per this longer version below, also less processing during RAW Conv...

I have not sharpened this AT ALL, and I think it helps with the haloing arund the details.
The more I tone the colours down, the more I like it too...???

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

05/03/2007 01:32:31 PM · #12

I do like that crop better, but I think best will be somewhere in between. I didn't mean to totally crop the water out, I think the water had some nice tones to it. I meant to crop just above where the pilings literally go into the water.

Anyway, keep goofing with it. It's a nice shot.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/03/2007 02:11:00 PM · #13

Originally posted by pix-al:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

What I find curious is that the haloing looks a different than I'm used to seeing caused only by oversharpening; it is wider. You sure you did not do any Shadow/Highlight and/or HDR like processing with it?

I did adjust Highlights and Shadows in Raw Conversion, yes.

If the haloing was a necessary artifact to get the nice silhouette then fine, but if you could have made the adjustment to achieve the same goal in RAW without the halo it would be wonderful and save you further post processing headaches. :)

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2007 03:36:24 PM · #14

OK,

Final image:

Am happier with this now.
1. Crop is standard 2 to 3 ratio so looks nicer.
2. Has not been sharpened at all, so "haloing" is minimised.
(still slightly apparent, though as

stdavidson wrote, it is a neccessary effect of the highlight/shadow manipulation to get the nice silhouette)
3. Cloned out the light - very tricky, but looks much better.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2007 04:24:50 PM · #15

The details look much better. And while this one looks more "real", I find I kinda miss the saturation of the first version.