| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/18/2004 04:17:34 PM · #26 |
Do you think I went too far with this?
: )
I notice many shots with the heavily burned skies - and I do like the technique generally (provided it's not OTT), but I think the key is to find a purpose for the mood it creates which is normally very austere, heavy and sometimes oppressive. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 05:17:05 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
How does one achive a sky like this? 
Filters? |
I'd use a combination of IR and Polarizing filters. align the polarizing filter to reduce intensity of the blue sky and it should be almost black. This is most effective when taking pictures perpendicular to the sun as that light is the most polarized. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 05:19:15 PM · #28 |
The SC is currently investigating this photo, trying to match the results from editing the original image.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 05:31:52 PM · #29 |
| The other way to get results like this (halos are a symptom) is by extreme use of the shadow/highlight filter in CS. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 05:44:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Konador:
The SC is currently investigating this photo, trying to match the results from editing the original image. |
SC are a busy lot! |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 05:44:36 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Do you think I went too far with this?
: )
I notice many shots with the heavily burned skies - and I do like the technique generally (provided it's not OTT), but I think the key is to find a purpose for the mood it creates which is normally very austere, heavy and sometimes oppressive. |
I never think black skies can be too black ;)
Like your description too.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 17:44:56. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 06:06:36 PM · #32 |
I'd probably use a polariser to darken the original sky, then channel mixer, heavily favouring the blue channel and then a bit of burning.
If you start with a fairly light sky, it will certainly take a lot of adjustments to get something that black (which shows in the contrast) but a polariser can get you most of the way there in the first place.
For an example, this is essentially an untouched camera original:
It wouldn't be much work to have a black sky in this case.
Another example, again polarised but mostly unadjusted:
This is another one of those examples where shooting stuff in camera, with a particular post-processing in mind makes a lot of sense. You can in some cases easily 'over polarise' a sky for a normal view, but would be perfect for a B&W treatment.
The original at the top of this thread just looks rather heavily edited though. You can get something like that effect using the Hue/saturation adjustments on only the blue channel and dropping the lightness all the way down.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 18:11:41.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2004 06:42:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
How does one achive a sky like this?
Filters? |
Hi! It's me with the bad news. I cheated!
Well, unintentionally. I've been sitting around trying to reproduce the results legally and it's pretty clear that I dodged and burned (as many others have pointed out.) I remember editing the photo for a long time making sure to stay within the rules. I think what happened is that I burned when I was still in color which I rarely ever do so I lost track of where I was in the editing process.
Anyway, my photo will be gone soon....
As far as the effect, I believe the closest you can get would be to drop the blue and cyan down in hue/saturation and then to use the red channel.
I really wish I had better equipment. My photoshop editing usually changes my original quite drastically. People would be in shock if they saw the originals of most of my challenge images. In this case, an illegal technique has been used and I completely understand that it will be dealt with accordingly. I need to write basic or open on my hand during the week I guess. It's hard to remember when you're editing a lot of photos at a time and not specifically for the challenge. Sorry for the waste of time!
JonPink, I totally agree with your findings. There is no good way to replace the dodge and burn tool!
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 18:43:41. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 07:52:57 PM · #34 |
I've now been officially DQ'd and re-uploaded my image so people can see what not to do in the basic-editing challenges. :) |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 08:27:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JPR:
I really wish I had better equipment. My photoshop editing usually changes my original quite drastically. People would be in shock if they saw the originals of most of my challenge images. In this case, an illegal technique has been used and I completely understand that it will be dealt with accordingly. I need to write basic or open on my hand during the week I guess. It's hard to remember when you're editing a lot of photos at a time and not specifically for the challenge. Sorry for the waste of time!
JonPink, I totally agree with your findings. There is no good way to replace the dodge and burn tool! |
Don't be so hard on yourself. These people came down on you like a ton of bricks (edit: actually only one person really). I enjoyed the image and I think the overtop burning you did on this image is the great work of a skilled eye.
Message edited by author 2004-08-18 20:29:24. |
|
|
|
08/18/2004 08:50:45 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Another example, again polarised but mostly unadjusted:
|
Using this as an example, I pulled it in to the channel mixer, and set the blue to about -20, red to about 120 and you get basically an inky black sky. You can pull that a little further by giving an 'S' shaped curve adjustment. And almost no noise... |
|
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: 09/11/2025 05:51:27 AM EDT.
