| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2006 11:18:10 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by samchad:
Rob, are you sure you mean Ctrl+I to invert the contrast of the selection, rather than Ctrl+Shift+I to invert the selection? I did the Ctrl+I first and ended up with a very strange almost black result! |
You're quite right. I mis-typed it. I'll go back and fix it. Thanks.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:41:28 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by rblanton:
 
Original..........................Added Gradient |
That's cleanly done :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:43:23 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Here's mine, from a few days ago. I'm still kinda' in the dark about post-processing. These are sized down to 960x640, but I can post full-size links if needed.
Original:  Edited:  |
The edited version is better... Good clone job on the wire... But it's really not much of an image to work with, is it? It's lacking anything of real interest we can work with to "improve" it in PP.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:46:25 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by funkin:
I'm not very good as post processing, although you'll probably gather that as soon as you see the image below!
  |
Substantial improvement here, but still fairly down-key. Try the contrast masking with the shadow layer set on "soft light", and then a hue/sat adjustment layer with work on the relative saturation and brightness of yellow and green. Try to force up the luminosity and the details in the foreground.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:49:05 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by myra:
Here is my edited version.
  |
That's a substantial imporvement. The sky is carrying a magenta cast that doesn't look natural at all. The image itself is really not "landscape without subject", it's got trees that dominate it strongly.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:50:01 PM · #181 |
Here's one I shot after sundown last night: A "Seascape Without Subject"
R.
Message edited by author 2006-04-10 16:09:22.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 03:58:30 PM · #182 |
OK, another try.
From this:
I extracted this:
I must admit to being a bit frustrated with this. I can visualize what I want things to look I just can't seem to get it to materialize. I have such a limited knowlendge of PS (Elements 4 in my case) I feel like I run into a giant brick wall when I get to the post processing point. I've looked for info on how to do the gradient sky thing, but, can't find anything on it. I feel like I'm just rolling the dice and whatever happens, happens. I'm not giving up, though. |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:08:58 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by error99:
I must admit to being a bit frustrated with this. I can visualize what I want things to look I just can't seem to get it to materialize. |
Why don't you try to TELL us what you "visualize", and maybe I can help you realize it. The sky gradient thing is easy, at least in PS. I'm not sure how the gradient tool works in elements, whether it's the same or not.
In Photoshop, here's how to do it:
1. Select the gradient tool.
2. In the tool's taskbar up top there's a window that shows the current gradient; click the down arrow and mouse over the gradient options; mind one that's called "foreground to transparent" and select that.
3. In the tools palette, near the bottom, are the foreground and BG colors; click the foreground square to get the color palette and select a blue from that.
4.Go to "Layers/New" and create a new, empty layer; name it "gradient".
5. With the gradient tool selected, draw a line straight down from the top on this new, empty layer. Experiment with how far to draw it to get the point-of-transparency where you want it.
6. With the gradient layer active, go to "image/adjust" and adjust the hue/saturation of the blue to make it match in tone the existing blue; it'll be darker, but it will be a good color match.
7. Now in the layers palette fade the opacity of the gradient layer.
8. You can also experiment with layer modes on the gradient layer; when you have clouds in there, sometimes "multiply" works better, for example. Changing modes will probably require a corresponding change in opacity.
That's basically all there is to it, except that sometimes we'll SELECT the sky and load the selection onto the gradients layer, so the gradient, when applied, will be constrained within the selection. This can be tricky, though, because if there's fine detail like trees verging into the sky, the transitions can look artificial.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 04:24:12 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by error99:
I must admit to being a bit frustrated with this. I can visualize what I want things to look I just can't seem to get it to materialize. |
Why don't you try to TELL us what you "visualize", and maybe I can help you realize it. The sky gradient thing is easy, at least in PS. I'm not sure how the gradient tool works in elements, whether it's the same or not.
In Photoshop, here's how to do it:
1. Select the gradient tool.
2. In the tool's taskbar up top there's a window that shows the current gradient; click the down arrow and mouse over the gradient options; mind one that's called "foreground to transparent" and select that.
3. In the tools palette, near the bottom, are the foreground and BG colors; click the foreground square to get the color palette and select a blue from that.
4.Go to "Layers/New" and create a new, empty layer; name it "gradient".
5. With the gradient tool selected, draw a line straight down from the top on this new, empty layer. Experiment with how far to draw it to get the point-of-transparency where you want it.
6. With the gradient layer active, go to "image/adjust" and adjust the hue/saturation of the blue to make it match in tone the existing blue; it'll be darker, but it will be a good color match.
7. Now in the layers palette fade the opacity of the gradient layer.
8. You can also experiment with layer modes on the gradient layer; when you have clouds in there, sometimes "multiply" works better, for example. Changing modes will probably require a corresponding change in opacity.
That's basically all there is to it, except that sometimes we'll SELECT the sky and load the selection onto the gradients layer, so the gradient, when applied, will be constrained within the selection. This can be tricky, though, because if there's fine detail like trees verging into the sky, the transitions can look artificial.
Robt. |
Thank you. Just for the record, it's certainly not anybody here I'm frustrated with, just my lack of PS knowledge, is all. I'll work with the above instructions and see what I come up with.
As for what I visualize for this photo? A gradient sky and an equally dark (gradient?) foreground. I'm trying to give more emphesis on the row of trees, though not too impressive to look at.
Thanks again. |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 05:09:28 PM · #185 |
Rob, did my attempt not meet the requirements?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 05:12:40 PM · #186 |
Alrighty...
Learned that gradient sky is probably better for a cloudless sky, though I went ahead and used it anyway. I then used the burn tool on the sky to create a bit of texture. For the foreground I burned in the lower part and then used the desat tool from the tree line down to give some variance in color. I also cropped a bit off both the top and bottom of the shot.
from this:
to this:
 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 07:14:29 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by samchad:
Rob, did my attempt not meet the requirements? |
Sorry Sam, I lost that one in the shuffle 'cuz no thumbnails. While not, strictly speaking, a "landscape without subject" inasmuch as the skyline dominates the image, it's nevertheless a very interesting shot and certainly qualifies as an excellent urban landscape. Oh, YEAH!
I've spent 5 minutes working on your original and came up with this:
I did contrast masking in 2 stages; in the first stage I masked the shadows with soft light mode and the highlights with multiply. Then I did some hue/sat concentrating on the yellows and reds, bumping the saturation and adjusting the relative lightness of the channels, with also a foray into the blue and cyan channels to make 'em a little darker and a little cooler blue.
Then I flattened all that and did contrast masking again, bumping up the bright areas a little.
It's just a quick stab, but I like the image a lot.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 07:15:24 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by error99:
Alrighty...
Learned that gradient sky is probably better for a cloudless sky, though I went ahead and used it anyway. I then used the burn tool on the sky to create a bit of texture. For the foreground I burned in the lower part and then used the desat tool from the tree line down to give some variance in color. I also cropped a bit off both the top and bottom of the shot.
from this:
to this:
|
This is a big improvement. You should be able to apply a gradient in multiply mode to that sky and not obliterate the clouds so badly...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 07:40:23 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...This is a big improvement. You should be able to apply a gradient in multiply mode to that sky and not obliterate the clouds so badly...
R. |
Thank you. I'm still messing around with it. I've never used layers before. Little bit of an eye opener. Thanks for all your help. |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 09:46:03 PM · #190 |
| And yet another grasshopper takes wing, while the master catches flies with his chop sticks. |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 09:47:25 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by rblanton:
And yet another grasshopper takes wing, while the master catches flies with his chop sticks. |
Oh, c'mon, that's embarassing. This is basic stuff. The real PS masters in here can run rings around me.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 09:51:18 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The edited version is better... Good clone job on the wire... But it's really not much of an image to work with, is it? It's lacking anything of real interest we can work with to "improve" it in PP.
R. |
Yeah, have to agree with that...not the greatest shot ever. Guess I was lookin' too much for "without a subject". Thanks Robert, I'll see what else I can come up with.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 10:08:15 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's just a quick stab, but I like the image a lot.
R. |
That's absolutely awesome! I'll try to replicate. I didn't even spot the reds to saturate them. Looks great!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2006 10:58:40 PM · #194 |
OK, one last go at it. I wasn't happy with the direction it was going. I still didn't like the "sameness" of the tree line and foreground. So, I converted it to b&w, did some more burning here and there, especially the line in front of the shrubs, about 1/3 the way up, to give a solid border between the foreground and trees. I then opened up three layers, each with its own warming tone (deep red, yellow and something in between) and mixed them until it had a pleasing (to my eyes) look. Flattened and here it is...
from:
to:
 |
|
|
|
04/10/2006 11:39:08 PM · #195 |
You're right Robert. I messed with the sky because it looked so white.
Here is the full top part of the image. I cropped the bottom here because there is a barbed wire fence. I haven't sharpened yet or messed with the colors. I did try gradient but haven't got it down. I have Elements 3 and also have the hidden tools downloaded but just neeed to practice how to use them.
 |
|
|
|
04/11/2006 02:37:54 AM · #196 |
Here is the edited photo. I would love a suggestion on how to make this better. I plan to take a new landscape photo tomorrow.
original  edited photo
|
|
|
|
04/11/2006 02:39:30 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by error99:
from:
to:
|
That's an interesting approach. I don't personally care for the hyper-smoothed sky against the hyper-sharpened foreground. IN any case, look at the very bottom of the foreground and see some distractions to clone away if you're gonna stay in this sharp-foreground mode.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2006 03:02:10 AM · #198 |
|
|
|
04/11/2006 09:45:48 AM · #199 |
| You only blurred the sky. I need to learn how to do that. The clouds look mre defined now and the colors more saturated. II couldn't get the clouds to pop. It was a very overcast, cold day. |
|
|
|
04/11/2006 11:05:04 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by myra:
You only blurred the sky. I need to learn how to do that. The clouds look mre defined now and the colors more saturated. II couldn't get the clouds to pop. It was a very overcast, cold day. |
Well, the clouds are popping because of how I ran this puppy through a double application of contrast masking, as per earlier examples, and THEN I adjusted levels in the sky to boot, and it was too much for the low-res version to handle and it started pixelating, so THEN I added gaussian blur at 1 pixel level to minimize that. If I were working from the full-sixe original I might not need the blue, I donno.
This sky was pushed right to the limit, that's a fact. But it's all "natural", all the detail is there, if only barely...
Robt.
|
|
