kenyc wrote in post #6155853
Well I can hardly wait to see the OPs reaction to what this thread has turned into.
Well I can hardly wait to see the OPs reaction to what this thread has turned into.
HAHA! You're telling me!!
jdizzle Darth Noink  69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 22, 2008 18:29 | #61 kenyc wrote in post #6155853 Well I can hardly wait to see the OPs reaction to what this thread has turned into. HAHA! You're telling me!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 22, 2008 18:32 | #62 imchillindave wrote in post #6157669 Wow, this thread took off. NONE of them are HDR, at least not by methods I've seen HDR's being made. The first one consists of the same RAW file being separately adjusted, one for the sky exposure, the other for the foreground exposure, then masked together in Photoshop. Same with 2,3,4 too. I usually like to edit the sky separate from the landscape to bring out the color and contrast with the clouds and not have the same effect applied to the landscape. The sky is almost always brighter than the foreground anyways, so I usually try to set my exposure to compensate for both without loosing details in my highlights or shadows, then using ACR to adjust the exposure for each and combine the two in PS. I did the colors the way I did in 2, because it was a rather boring looking sunrise otherwise. I tend to like vivid colors as in that shot, as IMO the reality of most shots like that are rather boring or flat and the bright colors make it much more appealing to the eye, yet without over saturating it. Once again, just my opinion. #4 had quite a bit of PP to it, as it was a very dull and gray day and I used a few curve adjustment layers to bring out the contrast in and add more detail to the shot. The sky was washed out in the original image and very flat, yet there's no highlight clipping in the image, even after PP. P.S. I don't use any filters on any of my lenses, not even the UV filter. I did have a focus issue with my 5D that I got corrected by Canon that may have affected some of the shots. #5 has no highlight blowouts in it either, even though some seem to think so. It was a long timed exposure, I think around 3-4 seconds and the only clipping of the highlights is at the very top where there's a blown out cloud. The PP of this one was very simple, I simply added contrast with the curves adjustment and then burnt the sky back in. I did not in any way add saturation or do anything to the colors. They came out in adding contrast to the image. The white balance was correct out of camera, so a little contrast was all it needed. The water is naturally that color due to natural lime deposits in it. The highlights in the water are bright, but not blown, and are really soft because of the timed exposure. I tend to like processing my images on the brighter end while watching out for blowouts in highlights and shadows if they're important. #6 is just a stitched photo from 3 shots and no HDR in it. I just did an exposure adjustment and curves adjustment and left it as is beyond that. I hope this answered the questions people had and if not, please ask and I will update my response. I didn't expect so many mixed opinions and replies in the short amount of time, but I do thank you all for your feedback and hope I've explained my technique and approach in a way that sheds light on why I edited them that way. I use to not believe in PP photos, but then realized in most cases, the reality of a photo is usually dull straight out of the camera and with a few modifications to it, you can make it look even better or perhaps all together different and resemble the way you see it as an artist. The feedback I get on my "modified" photos is far better than any feedback I got on the flat and dull photos straight from the camera I use to take and post a few years back. Thanks again for the feedback and I'll gladly reply to any other questions and appreciate any additional comments, good or bad.  Thanks for giving us your explanation. It answers our curiousity and now we know!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kenyc Cream of the Crop  More info | Aug 22, 2008 19:57 | #63 Yep thanks for filling in the details Dave. Kenny A. Chaffin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
storeman Senior Member 642 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2005 Location: Oldham, UK More info | Aug 22, 2008 20:01 | #64 Having read all the posts in this thread I thought I would add my own comments.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kenyc Cream of the Crop More info | Aug 22, 2008 20:02 | #65 storeman wrote in post #6159506 Having read all the posts in this thread I thought I would add my own comments. While being nice images to look at, Highly saturated colours with a lot of contrast, my first impression was that they weren't real. The images looked more like art in that they were created images rather than photos. Whilst this is not a bad thing, my personal opinion is that the photo is a record of a 'real' thing. It is a record of something that has existed and could in times to come form part of an historical record. Art images are the product of the artists imagination which could be a composite of 1 or more real things. Still nice to look at but not an accurate representation. The images the OP posted are excellent works but for me show off the OP's skills in photoshop than anything else. A man after my own heart. Kenny A. Chaffin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TheMack Senior Member  445 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2007 Location: Tryon, NC More info | Aug 22, 2008 20:27 | #66 |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Aug 22, 2008 21:58 | #68 storeman wrote in post #6159506 Having read all the posts in this thread I thought I would add my own comments. While being nice images to look at, Highly saturated colours with a lot of contrast, my first impression was that they weren't real. The images looked more like art in that they were created images rather than photos. Whilst this is not a bad thing, my personal opinion is that the photo is a record of a 'real' thing. It is a record of something that has existed and could in times to come form part of an historical record. Art images are the product of the artists imagination which could be a composite of 1 or more real things. Still nice to look at but not an accurate representation. The images the OP posted are excellent works but for me show off the OP's skills in photoshop than anything else. First off, I like to capture my images as is but, with limited PP. I've seen some photos captured as-is and it doesn't always give me that "Wow" factor. If you do shoot RAW, than that gives you alot to work with. If you've ever read some of Ansel Adams's way of post processing( dark room techniques), he did the same thing in his b&w photos. He knew how to get the best out of his images and I think that's what we all go for. Fine if these photos don't suit your taste but, getting a photo as-is doesn't always work.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 22, 2008 23:53 | #69 storeman wrote in post #6159506 Having read all the posts in this thread I thought I would add my own comments. While being nice images to look at, Highly saturated colours with a lot of contrast, my first impression was that they weren't real. The images looked more like art in that they were created images rather than photos. Whilst this is not a bad thing, my personal opinion is that the photo is a record of a 'real' thing. It is a record of something that has existed and could in times to come form part of an historical record. Art images are the product of the artists imagination which could be a composite of 1 or more real things. Still nice to look at but not an accurate representation. The images the OP posted are excellent works but for me show off the OP's skills in photoshop than anything else. Well in that case and since it keeps coming up, here's the original shot straight from the camera and this should really awe the all natural shot guys.
Now I shot this a little dark, as I was trying not to clip my shadows (which there's very small spots that are clipped in this shot) and trying not to blow the bright sky out beyond recovery, which did happen in the clouds anyways. But this is the "real" photo and I personally don't find it near as flattering or pleasing to the eye as the original post. I think the only two adjustments to this photo besides masking back in the sky was a levels adjustment and a curve adjustment to add contrast. I don't see how this varies from the original, as I recall that water being vividly bluish/green and the red rocks around the falls being that red. The camera didn't and never will capture it with the dynamic range my eyes saw it with nor the color I saw it with. But that's the "all-natural" shot for those who like it that way. Canon 30D | Canon 5D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 23, 2008 00:01 | #70 curiousgeorge wrote in post #6155830 The water fall shot has halos around the top of the cliff, and is overexposed and oversaturated in places. The halos were actually just my lack of willingness to take the extra time and really smooth out the blend between the sky and cliff edge. Perhaps a little sloppy, but I was trying to edit it quickly and I let that slide. And people keep mentioning it being "overexposed", which I'll gladly show a screenshot showing the highlight/shadow clipping warnings in ACR to prove there's no blowouts in the highlights. I'm very picky about making sure my highlights aren't blown out and the only place in the photo it is is the cloud at the top. The water is very "soft", as I did a long exposure to give the moving water this effect, so there's no detail in the flowing water. This is a very common effect with streams and waterfalls to give it a softer and flowing feel. Canon 30D | Canon 5D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Photoshop is just another tool to see your vision through to the final print. Its just like printing your own work. Adams said something like this, Taking the exposure is like writing the musical score and processing and printing were performing it. PP is a tool to help you get from what you saw in your minds eye at exposure to the final print and if your not using it effectively you are cheating your vision just as you would be if you were not changing development times on your B&W negs or burning, dodging or any darkroom technique that helps you achieve what you saw at exposure and only you (the photographer) know exactly what thats suppose to be.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
philmar Cream of the Crop  More info | Aug 23, 2008 21:50 | #72 the second one grabs me and squeezes them the most for me A photo I took HERE published in National GeographicTime on your hands? Then HERE'S plenty more photos to nibble on
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 3781 guests, 130 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
