landscape shot

[ctgoldwing]

just returned from a motorcycle trip to Montana & the Canadian Rockies. One of my shots:

http://www.molaver.org/photos/misc/img_1742scene.jpg

[RedShoesGirl]

It is really a nifty scene well composed...but rather flat and light and it needed some sharpening. I tried something if you don't mind.

before:

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35before-med.jpg

after:

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35after.jpg

[Spirit]

Wow. WOW. That's a beautiful shot.

I was supposed to be in the Rockies right now, but my plans got cancelled... a 2 week trip. It's nice to see pics. :)

[ryuwulf]

very beautiful!!!

Bravo!!! and very good use of color correction.
Did you do everything in RGB? I know of some people who like to mess with curves in CMYK because they get the extra black(K), they tweak it and convert it back to RGB for the web.

[ctgoldwing]

RedShoesGirl wrote:
It is really a nifty scene well composed...but rather flat and light and it needed some sharpening. I tried something if you don't mind.

before:

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35before-med.jpg

after:

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35after.jpg

EXCELLENT EDITING! Thanks, now I can see the potential this shot has!
Could you share with me some of the tools you used?
Thanks!

[RedShoesGirl]

ryuwulf wrote:
very beautiful!!!

Bravo!!! and very good use of color correction.
Did you do everything in RGB? I know of some people who like to mess with curves in CMYK because they get the extra black(K), they tweak it and convert it back to RGB for the web.


Everything done in RGB. The ONLY time we do anything in CMYK is to get images ready for press. It is a horrid colour space that does not have the colours or lattitude of RGB. It is really easy to boost the black in RGB if one needs to by going to adjustments - selective colour - add black to the black only in very small amounts otherwise things can get very blocked up.

[RedShoesGirl]

Could you share with me some of the tools you used?
Thanks!


Using PhotoShop 7 I adjusted levels to add depth and saturation to the sky and lake. Used levels again to add contrast to that little area in the mountains right above the trees. Used adjustment-selective colour to remove yellow from overall image first then more yellow removed from the lake itself by using the snapshot tool. A very handy tool. Final did an unsharp mask for entire image.

It isn't perfect, but you can see the potential of your beautiful shot!

[ctgoldwing]

Thanks Red Shoes!
I guess the only way I will learn is to keep practicing & trying new things. It's just like being back in the darkroom, lol.

[RedShoesGirl]

ctgoldwing wrote:
Thanks Red Shoes!
I guess the only way I will learn is to keep practicing & trying new things. It's just like being back in the darkroom, lol.


Exactly! But if you have darkroom skills you will be surprised at how relevant those are to PhotoShop and shooting digitally. All things are connected.

[xxlt]

Wow~~amazing! Great picture "ctgoldwing". RedShoesGirl that was fantastic! :) :)

bill from Ohio w/G3

[mpaul73]

This is a great shot with very effective PP work. My only reservation is that there appears to be what looks like heavy jpeg artifacts? Apart from that I like it a lot.

regards
Martin.

[RedShoesGirl]

mpaul73 wrote:
This is a great shot with very effective PP work. My only reservation is that there appears to be what looks like heavy jpeg artifacts? Apart from that I like it a lot.

regards
Martin.

Just the results of working a small jpeg and saving it again at a low resolution. I am sure the original is fine. :)

RSG

[marie]

not sure how this will appear when right beside the other photographs shown here
but can I ask anyone ...
...what would your impression of what's missing or wrong with this copy of the original shot above, for instance.

this was working with irfanview only.
very simple and straightforward corrections.
sharpening
colour red +20
green + 13
blue + 16
gamma correction 1.04
brightness 42
contrast 50

I would like opinions please

are there details other then ' not as much blue in the sky' ( which I ' think' may be slightly overdone in the second shot above )

is this version too sharp ? in your opinion.
things which the picture 'may need' ?

sometimes the other method (in my opinion )
is too 'smooth'
or something,
but thats only my opinion.

(the magic word is ' opinion ' tonight )

am just very interested.
I have not compared the three pictures side by side which would probably would help with this question.

:)


thanks
marie

http://www2.pbase.com/image/19907196

[RedShoesGirl]

marie wrote:
not sure how this will appear when right beside the other photographs shown here
but can I ask anyone ...
...what would your impression of what's missing or wrong with this copy of the original shot above, for instance.

this was working with irfanview only.
very simple and straightforward corrections.
sharpening
colour red +20
green + 13
blue + 16
gamma correction 1.04
brightness 42
contrast 50

I would like opinions please

are there details other then ' not as much blue in the sky' ( which I ' think' may be slightly overdone in the second shot above )

is this version too sharp ? in your opinion.
things which the picture 'may need' ?

sometimes the other method (in my opinion )
is too 'smooth'
or something,
but thats only my opinion.

(the magic word is ' opinion ' tonight )

am just very interested.
I have not compared the three pictures side by side which would probably would help with this question.

:)


thanks
marie

http://www2.pbase.com/image/19907196





I think your version looks good colour wise although I think the sky is bland...I have seen these Montana skies and they are brilliant! And yes, it has WAY too much sharpening.

How the photo is processed for printing will be different than what we do here.

RedShoesGirl

[Conk]

RSG, you did a real good job on a already very well composed shot.

[marie]

Thank you Lara.

( and for your indirect reply Conk )

:)


first let me say I have nothing at all against improving a picture
we all see things so differently .
that's important too

you mention there can be very blue skies in montana
and I can well believe it
(they 'sometimes' come over here too ) :)

although not the day this picture was taken were they overhead
or else the camera settings were wrong
which brings me to the most important part of photography

not talking about this picture,
if someone wants to learn they need to know more about using the camera
and taking the shots in the first place.
that includes me too.

I have nothing against photoshop elements and all the help there.... at all.
(used correctly)
it is not a criticism of the work done later, only a question.
I am entitled to my opinion. and I question some things .
its never a personal hit against anyone.
its just that it is important to me
(and my idea of photography)

'sometimes' it seems to me that the cart is pulling the horse
with what can happen with photographs at a later stage

I have seen here in the critiques section where some have come back again and again over time
with their pictures no better then before.
what comes to my mind every time
is the story of the 'emperors new clothes'

because the people who advised them suggested ways of making their picture better
...after some shots were taken badly and some very badly.
(not the above picture , at all)
why not tell them to scrap it if its not a 'treasure' picture they really 'needed' to keep
(that a different story, how to make it better 'is' important then)
best to go out and try and take a better picture ?
sometimes its the person who is critquing is making a point for themselves.
I know its important for people to get used to using the help which is there to correct pictures.
but if they can't take a good picture in the first place they should be told that,
for them first to try and get used to the taking of a picture over and over.
not to get used to using correction methods before they can even take a decent shot.
(I am not talking about this lovely picture here )


its really all about trying to take shots well in the first place. that is essential.
with an eye to seeing the scene before they click the button.
watching out for distracting objects.
seeing the light is right. and compose all ..as well as possible.
so many things to think of.
right, things can be sorted later
however, its best to get better with using the camera itself

sometimes along comes a dull picture and like magic its changed
they go off and shot another and another
maybe the idea they will get help with the 'magic wands' later ...sticks in their minds
so magic that the picture may not be recognizable as the original .
that's ok if that's what one wants that
it really is.
I am only saying how I see things.
it should not offend anyone.
as we all see things in different ways
and that's ok too.
everyone is entitled to their opinion without fear of being thought 'funny' because they don't 'go along' with everything always.
that's the important thing


regards the slight difference in this picture I posted (no thanks to me)
I thought that the trees reflected on the left showed up better
and things not quite as dark in other places.
I was going to make the sky more blue but thought it took away from the whole scene .. slightly.
sharpening is a little too much, even though it was just sharpened once
but that is the scope irfanview gives.
just comparing.
If I had to choose
I like the blue in the original picture best

its not a bad little thing at all (irfanview) for those who cannot get or have not got photoshop
I have photoshop elements2.0. a while now
I read all here and take advice where and when I want and need it
and form my own opinions.

Thanks a lot
I understand what you say about printing .

and now I have a heap of visitors coming so must get things ready.

:)

best wishes
marie

[RedShoesGirl]

Marie,

What you say is VERY true. But also, part of shooting digitally is knowing what MUST be done after shooting to make the image work. Not to overdo to correct mistakes in shooting but the basic "darkroom" work if you will.

There is also a creative element to post-shooting also. And that is assuming that one has a good image to begin with and not just using imaging programs to fix shooting errors like you said.

That said I remembered something last night on the long drive home. I am working on a Mac so what seems right to me saturation and lightness wise is going to seem too dark and too saturated on a PC. So the blue skies of Montana on my monitor do not look too blue or too dark they may to someone who is looking at the shot on a PC monitor.

[ctgoldwing]

RedShoesGirl wrote:
So the blue skies of Montana on my monitor do not look too blue or too dark they may to someone who is looking at the shot on a PC monitor.


First I have to give the Canadians their due. This shot is from the Canadian Rockies (about 20 klicks north of Lake Louise on the Icefield Parkway).

Second I would like to REALLY thank everyone for their comments! I have edited the shot several times now with PSP and now I think I really have something - due in large part to all the suggestions. Unfortunately my website is down right now but when it is back (my son hosts it at his house) I will repost my 'latest' version.

This is just like the darkroom - both bad & good, lol! I remember how frustrating working with color was. Besides composition & proper exposure there was (is) the (very) subjective evaluation of the right color balance.

I do agree with the poster above that it's tough to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It is a whole lot easier when you start with interesting subject matter that is properly exposed! The creative aspect of the art is something I really have to focus on.

Thanks again!

[jinushaun]

Agreed, great shot, but colour looks washed out. Needs contrast. Could've benefitted from a polariser or post-processing (PS).

[ctgoldwing]

jinushaun wrote:
Agreed, great shot, but colour looks washed out. Needs contrast. Could've benefitted from a polariser or post-processing (PS).

Thanks jinushaun here is the image after I edited it it psp v8.

http://molaver.org/photos/misc/img_1742mod3s.jpg

btw: handheld, 24-70 f2.8 zoom at f8, 1/90 sec, iso 200 with polarizing filter