| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2006 04:02:47 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by Raziel:
Thanks.
Any tips on how I could further improve the shot? |
I'm not sire I agree with your cropping decision; the final result feels cramped to me, claustrophobic even. I think I like the full frame better, as far as croppiong goes. You can easily deal with the bright patch of sky using selective color or a gradient inlay.
See how in the original the stream seems to be moving, visually? And by cutting so tight on the left you ave stemmed that movement and made things more static? I suspect you're trying to get rid of what you see as a dead corner in the image lower left, but I think you can do that fine with a little burning down...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 05:12:27 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Is this any closer to what you're looking for?
Robt. |
Thats much closer to what my eye was seeing! The sky looks similar to my version 2 but foreground has much more color. Did you use a masking layer with color burn or saturation for foreground only?
mark
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 05:40:55 PM · #253 |
OK... think I'm back on topic. Thought I'd take a stab at a flat light landscape I took in Sedona a couple weeks back.
Original: ... Processed: ... B&W:
I always tell people that you get better black and white tonality on floral (and landscape) images under overcast and flat light conditions than you do in bright sunlight which is why I included the B&W converted version. Thought I'd put that idea to the test on a landscape. I'm not so sure that is correct now. ;)
Post processing:
1-Reduce color noise
2-Standard Levels contrast adjustment
3-Curves midtone contrast adjustment except for sky
4-Curves for general brightness increase except for sky
5-Selective color adjustments for red, yellow, blue, cyan and blacks
6-Hue/Sat for increase saturation of red, blue and cyan
7-50% greyscale overlay layer for dodge and burn
8-Another 50% greyscale overlay area for further burning in of the clouds
9-Crop, scale, smart shapen and save
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 05:57:38 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Is this any closer to what you're looking for?
Robt. |
Thats much closer to what my eye was seeing! The sky looks similar to my version 2 but foreground has much more color. Did you use a masking layer with color burn or saturation for foreground only?
mark |
I have company coming for a big feast, so I don't have much time. Try to set your final version and mine up in separate windows in a tabbed browser like Firefox or the new IE so you can click back and forth between them. It's by FAR the best way to compare versions. Anyway, if you do that, you'll see our skies are very. very different. Study those differences, OK? Try to see if you can figure out what they are.
I'll be back to this, but not for a while OK? Short version; I had to work from the image you had ALREADY DONE autoloevels on, so I had a LOT of foreground recovery to do. It took me 2 passes through contrast masking to accomplish that. I also made a sky and a foreground mask and worked on each separately, after creating a merged, contrast-masked version off the original.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 06:03:54 PM · #255 |
I've done it once and never been able to achieve the same again. It took me a whole day of messing around because I knew that what the eye had seen looked nothing like what my captured image was showing.
When I got home I was gutted to see this
Fixing it took me to places in PaintSop Pro v7.02 that I had never been to before. The beauty of adjustment layers (new skill back then) is that I'm able to go back and see what I finally did to it. The killer of course was that blue haze
- Brightness <-32
- Contrast ->24
- Colour Balance - Shadows: Cyan/Red ->25, Magenta/Green ->5, Yellow/Blue <-19
- Colour balance Midtones and Highlights = no change.
I didn't understand Levels and Curves and still don't so that's all I could do.
The result was dramatic
but it has lost something really important - perspective.
The original has even the foreground trees in a blue haze which just shows how far away these windmills were (about a mile) and I've therfore lost the sense of scale. People asked slightly incredulously if the white dots were sheep. Yes they are and the 'little bushes' at the base of the towers are in fact 15-20ft trees. So I was happy with the dramatic result but still disappointed in it as a photo because it failed to show and communicate an important part of the scene.
Oh yeah and this was my fourth challenge entry, so I thought "Cool, this DPC stuff is easy" .... HA!
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-04-15 19:24:13. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 06:08:59 PM · #256 |
This was shot with an overcast sky about mid day. The included RAW image is straight from camera with no adjustments.
RAW:
After RAW convertion...
*cloned some bushes away at end of road and various small distractions in trees
*contrast
*hue/sat (boost red, backed off green and yellow)
*layer, burn
*layer, dodge
*flatten
*layer, convert to black and white, mix at 50%
*flatten
*layer, gaussian blur, mix at about 35%
*layer, desat road some
*hue/sat, reduced overall saturation about 20ish%
*flatten
*resize
*save for web
I "may" have missed a step as I had some distractions here and am not sure I wrote it all down. But, that should be close to what was done. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 07:20:34 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by error99:
This was shot with an overcast sky about mid day. The included RAW image is straight from camera with no adjustments. |
I love the result Kelly. That just shows what a babe I am at this. I wouldn't have given that image a second thought when I was reviewing my card-dump. Am I allowed to say that the original is really really boring, probably to be scored a 4? In fact I think I have several like it just stored on DVD as images that aren't going anywhere. So, what do I know! I guess that's why this is a brillaint thread Robert. So much to learn, so little time.
The result you got from that is incredible, it would look great as a large-format framed print on my wall.
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-04-15 19:28:15. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 07:32:39 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by error99:
This was shot with an overcast sky about mid day. The included RAW image is straight from camera with no adjustments. |
I love the result Kelly. That just shows what a babe I am at this. I wouldn't have given that image a second thought when I was reviewing my card-dump. Am I allowed to say that the original is really really boring, probably to be scored a 4? In fact I think I have several like it just stored on DVD as images that aren't going anywhere. so, what do I know! I guess that's why this is a brillaint thread Robert.
The result you got from that is incredible, it would look great as a large-format framed print on my wall.
Brett |
Wow, thank you. I'm still a babe as well. I can always pick out about 100 things I'd do differently. Of course if I HAD done those 100 things differently, I'd probably find another 100 things to do differently. I still feel like I'm driving blind in PS, but, I'm getting more comfortable with it.
Again, I appreciate the comment. :)
Kelly
Message edited by author 2006-04-16 02:33:49. |
|
|
|
04/15/2006 09:50:38 PM · #259 |
This exercise DOES do a lot to point out how useful, even vital, PP is to the landscape workflow, doesn't it?
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:17:21 PM · #260 |
 \
Ok, Worked on the sky and foreground with separate layer masks as follows.
1. sky: color balance adjustment to ^Blue/Cyan
2. foreground: saturation increase of yellow.
3. Curves adjustment on foreground to ^yellow.
4. resize and uSm: increased % to 130.
I think I was pretty successful at taking away the brown/red cast in the clouds. The yellow still doesn't have the POP of your version but it is much better as well. HOpe you enjoyed your feast. mark
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:17:39 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This exercise DOES do a lot to point out how useful, even vital, PP is to the landscape workflow, doesn't it?
R. |
Amen!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2006 10:26:05 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by error99:
Wow, thank you. I'm still a bade as well. I can always pick out about 100 things I'd do differently. Of course if I HAD done those 100 things differently, I'd probably find another 100 things to do differently. I still feel like I'm driving blind in PS, but, I'm getting more comfortable with it. |
Kelly... Bear_Music is giving assignments and people are taking pictures and showing their before and after post processed versions. At "The Radiant Vista" web site they make video clips describing detailed post processing steps to go from the "before" stage to the "after" stage with images sent to them by photographers.
A guy named Mark Johnson takes real world pictures sent in to him and creates a video clip where he shows and talks through all the post processing steps to make it a finished product. They are fantastic videos, the best I've seen on the web. Everyone from beginner to advanced PS user can learn plenty from them.
The videos are in a collection called "The Photoshop Workbench". There are 24 there now and they add a new one every week.
Mark Johnson also has created a set of Photoshop "reference" tutorials that are also being built up with new additions.
For anyone wanting to understand post processing better I HIGHLY recommend you start with Mark's video tutorial called "A Photoshop Reference: Essential Adjustment Layers". It is 57 minutes long but will give you a comprehensive understanding of fundamental post processing and color correction. It is worth every second.
Essential Adjustment Layers - (third selection on this page)
The Photoshop Workbench
|
|
|
|
04/16/2006 01:52:07 AM · #263 |
 Unhorsed with
 Horsed with |
|
|
|
04/16/2006 02:27:29 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by error99:
Wow, thank you. I'm still a bade as well. I can always pick out about 100 things I'd do differently. Of course if I HAD done those 100 things differently, I'd probably find another 100 things to do differently. I still feel like I'm driving blind in PS, but, I'm getting more comfortable with it. |
Kelly... Bear_Music is giving assignments and people are taking pictures and showing their before and after post processed versions. At "The Radiant Vista" web site they make video clips describing detailed post processing steps to go from the "before" stage to the "after" stage with images sent to them by photographers.
A guy named Mark Johnson takes real world pictures sent in to him and creates a video clip where he shows and talks through all the post processing steps to make it a finished product. They are fantastic videos, the best I've seen on the web. Everyone from beginner to advanced PS user can learn plenty from them.
The videos are in a collection called "The Photoshop Workbench". There are 24 there now and they add a new one every week.
Mark Johnson also has created a set of Photoshop "reference" tutorials that are also being built up with new additions.
For anyone wanting to understand post processing better I HIGHLY recommend you start with Mark's video tutorial called "A Photoshop Reference: Essential Adjustment Layers". It is 57 minutes long but will give you a comprehensive understanding of fundamental post processing and color correction. It is worth every second.
Essential Adjustment Layers - (third selection on this page)
The Photoshop Workbench |
Thanks much, Steve. I'll check that out. |
|
|
|
04/16/2006 02:29:56 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This exercise DOES do a lot to point out how useful, even vital, PP is to the landscape workflow, doesn't it?
R. |
Absolutely. I feel as if I'm trying to use everything I can get my hands on, though, just because it's there. I have a long ways to go before knowing when enough is enough. |
|
|
|
04/16/2006 02:55:59 PM · #266 |
If you want a perfect (and extreme) example of what raking light can do for you, check out the image in the first post of this thread:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=378941
Happy Easter!
R.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2006 07:37:30 PM · #267 |
Now that's a cool shot. Thanks for pointing that out. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 02:23:04 AM · #268 |
It's not entirely flat light in the whole frame, but it was the best I got from the 'expedition' to track down a good flat light subject...
1600px orig:
//jonbuder.com/temp/road_orig.jpg
Does that look bleak/boring also? I think I suck at finding good subjects, so I hope it's ok.. |
|
|
|
04/17/2006 03:18:28 AM · #269 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
It's not entirely flat light in the whole frame, but it was the best I got from the 'expedition' to track down a good flat light subject...
1600px orig:
//jonbuder.com/temp/road_orig.jpg
Does that look bleak/boring also? I think I suck at finding good subjects, so I hope it's ok.. |
This shot actually has VERY dramatic light. I have attached a version made from the original that is processed to show what's actually there. I'm not saying it's a final version, or even a better one, but just pointing out that this is very strong backlighting and it is not "flat light" at all. Flat light comes from behind us or from nearly overhead.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 02:25:34 PM · #270 |
As per "popular" request, here is more grist for the mill...
Let's see what ya got!
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 02:36:26 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by dpdave:
As per "popular" request, here is more grist for the mill...
Let's see what ya got! |
Thanks for posting this, Dave, after I saw it elsewhere and asked you to load it up. This is a good example of a "flat light landscape" that can use a PP goose to make it sing. Here's my quick reworking of it to show one possible direction:
I took the original and used contrast masking with the shadow mask set to soft light (this is described earlier int he thread). One result of this was that the sky became much more intense a blue than I wanted, so I knew I'd have to fix that.
I made a dupe layer from BG and merged the contrast mask layers into that. Then I made a transparent layer and laid in two gradients; a dark blue-to-transparent in the sky and a drak brown-to-transparent layer in the foreground. I then faded this layer to best effect.
Then I used a hue/saturation adjustment layer to tone down the blues/cyans and bump up the yellows and reds. Of particular note is that I varied the brightness of red and yellow channels, saturating and brightenin yellow and saturating and darkening red; this gave us some tonal relief in the foreground.
Finally, I zoomed in ont he tree, which had blocked up in the contrast masking pahse since it was on the soft light mask, and I selected the tree with the magic wand on the merged layer, then erased it completely to let the original, more detailed, tree show through.
Resized and sharpened.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2006 05:47:12 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dpdave:
As per "popular" request, here is more grist for the mill...
Let's see what ya got! |
Thanks for posting this, Dave, after I saw it elsewhere and asked you to load it up. This is a good example of a "flat light landscape" that can use a PP goose to make it sing. Here's my quick reworking of it to show one possible direction:
I took the original and used contrast masking with the shadow mask set to soft light (this is described earlier int he thread). One result of this was that the sky became much more intense a blue than I wanted, so I knew I'd have to fix that.
I made a dupe layer from BG and merged the contrast mask layers into that. Then I made a transparent layer and laid in two gradients; a dark blue-to-transparent in the sky and a drak brown-to-transparent layer in the foreground. I then faded this layer to best effect.
Then I used a hue/saturation adjustment layer to tone down the blues/cyans and bump up the yellows and reds. Of particular note is that I varied the brightness of red and yellow channels, saturating and brightenin yellow and saturating and darkening red; this gave us some tonal relief in the foreground.
Finally, I zoomed in ont he tree, which had blocked up in the contrast masking pahse since it was on the soft light mask, and I selected the tree with the magic wand on the merged layer, then erased it completely to let the original, more detailed, tree show through.
Resized and sharpened.
Robt. |
That's a nice shot. When I look at the main subject (for me it's the tree) I see what looks to be lighting that's on the verge of backlight. Though, the rockface to the right looks to be flat. When I've been thinking of flat light it's been a scene mostly void of shadows, taken mid day. I need to rethink this. Thanks for this example, dpdave. |
|
|
|
04/18/2006 06:16:59 PM · #273 |
I was just going to watch and not post to this thread but with this topic, I would really appreciate it if bear_music would use my pic to see if it is salvageable. I have tried with PSP9 but can't seem to get it to pop without turning the sky cartoony and losing detail in the spruce trees. If you don't think it will improve from some experienced PP, just ignore my post, and I'll go back to lurking. ;0)
This is the original:  And this is what I ended up with from PSP9: 
Thanks.... |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 03:22:30 AM · #274 |
|
|
|
04/19/2006 07:21:08 AM · #275 |
Thanks for the pointers on that Bear. I went on as you directed, but deviated a little bit, going for a bit more subtlety.
the original
My second take.
|
|
