Mull Lighthouse, Versace Style

Llywellyn

I still haven't finished processing my images from Mull, and only partly because I'm learning some new processing that slows me down. Most of it is just pure procrastination. :wink

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Vincent Versace techniques, particularly his approach to BW conversions. This is my first go trying it out on a landscape. What do you think?

EDIT: Adding a revised version based on the excellent feedback. Thank you, everyone!

Original


Edited


Thanks for stopping by! :thumb

CatOne

Whoa... dramatic clouds, that's for sure!

I like the clouds. They may be a bit _too_ contrasty But then again, I'm not so versed in the style of Versace's B&W conversions.

I do think though the Lighthouse is too hot. It looks pure (paper) white to me... is there any detail in it, or was it blown out in the shot itself? It's awfully bright in the lower right corner in general, and a bit distracting.

dgentile

Kerry,

good shot, good composition.
I like your approach to that scene and the hard contrast. (I love strong contrast b&w stuff).

Art Scott

Very well done......It is a neck snapper for sure.thumbbow

Llywellyn

CatOne wrote:

Whoa... dramatic clouds, that's for sure!

I like the clouds. They may be a bit _too_ contrasty But then again, I'm not so versed in the style of Versace's B&W conversions.

I do think though the Lighthouse is too hot. It looks pure (paper) white to me... is there any detail in it, or was it blown out in the shot itself? It's awfully bright in the lower right corner in general, and a bit distracting.

I'm a fan of contrasty, but I was unsure about the clouds. I did pull them back some from my original contrast as I felt they'd gotten too dark. I'll look again and probably tweak some more.

The lighthouse is not blown in the original, and the detail is still there (if you put your nose up to it). I had a point set on it to ensure I didn't blow it out. The point reads values of 244 for R, G, and B (which is what Versace suggests in the book). Using the Threshold technique, there isn't a white point recognized until I pull the right handle in to 190. I was trying to go by the numbers (which I never do but need to do), which is very uncomfortable for me.

I really appreciate the feedback. Thank you so much! It'll definitely help as i continue to work this.

SteveF

Certainly dramatic processing.

Agree with the lighthouse being too hot, but otw things work well.

Llywellyn

dgentile wrote:

Kerry,

good shot, good composition.
I like your approach to that scene and the hard contrast. (I love strong contrast b&w stuff).

Thank you! I didn't even crop this, so it's good to hear you like the composition. I'm also a contrasty B&W fan.

Art Scott wrote:

Very well done......It is a neck snapper for sure.thumbbow

As long as your head is still on after the snapping, I'll take this as a huge compliment. :giggle And two bows, thank you so much!

Llywellyn

SteveF wrote:

Certainly dramatic processing.

Agree with the lighthouse being too hot, but otw things work well.

Thank you, Steve. I'll be looking again at the brightness there.

schmoo

How funny! I have had Versace's book for months but actually stopped reading after chapter 2. And I was going through my bookshelves two days ago, found it, and started flipping through it again. I had almost totally forgotten I owned his book. :ivar

I like strong contrast too, but the land mass looks almost like it was night. Of course, it felt like it to all of us hauling out of bed so early that morning - although I'd do it again in a heartbeat!

What I guess I'm saying is I think the lighthouse would be fine as bright as it is if the mountains and hills on the light were just a bit brighter too. I believe you that the structure itself isn't blown out, but it doesn't quite jive with the darkness of everything on the same plane, if that makes sense.

That said, I still love this scene (it's on my mousepad of course!) and I wish I still had photos to process from this trip, myself.

Llywellyn

Oh, thanks, Steph! I spent a lot of time masking what I'd darkened on the land mass to try to lighten it back up. I didn't want to brighten it back up too much and distract from the lighthouse, but it sounds like I can push it a bit further to achieve some balance and still hang on to Versace's idea of guiding the eye with brightness and sharpness.

Marc Muench

I agree with Schmoo if you keep the mountain and lower clouds a bit lighter then the lighthouse wont appear soooooo light. In the dark room we used this technique, in reverse to make off white paper appear brighter, that is, we darkened everything else in the photo and then behold the WHITE PAPER
I dont know if Versace's book explains it but what I would do is reduce the effect of the darkening on the suggested areas, rather than making a separate mask to lighten. This way you wont be tweeking the data around so much. If you have done your work right you can take a large gradated brush and paint away the effect of what ever you darkened with (threshold) by placing the brush at something like 30% and stroke it several times. Looks like it will be worth the effort though

Llywellyn

Marc Muench wrote:

I agree with Schmoo if you keep the mountain and lower clouds a bit lighter then the lighthouse wont appear soooooo light. In the dark room we used this technique, in reverse to make off white paper appear brighter, that is, we darkened everything else in the photo and then behold the WHITE PAPER
I dont know if Versace's book explains it but what I would do is reduce the effect of the darkening on the suggested areas, rather than making a separate mask to lighten. This way you wont be tweeking the data around so much. If you have done your work right you can take a large gradated brush and paint away the effect of what ever you darkened with (threshold) by placing the brush at something like 30% and stroke it several times. Looks like it will be worth the effort though

Thanks, Marc! I never flatten (lots'a layer lovin' right here), so I know exactly which layer I used to darken and it will be easy-peasy to do what you suggest on that mask. I really appreciate the tip!

Llywellyn

Edited the first post to add a revised version based on the feedback. Better? Worse?

pathfinder

Great shot, Kerry.

I am inclined to agree with Schmoo - I think the shoreline and the other building are too dark, compared to the stark whiteness of the lighthouse. I like the intense sky, but miss a bit of the detail hidden in the shadows along the shoreline.

Marc Muench

Just for example,
I lowered the values of all the highlights except the light and lightened the left hill a tad. Also in your edited version I now notice the mask between the sky and the horizon, on occasion a soft brush at 50% whisked over the transition will do



lighthouseflat.jpg

jeffmeyers

Great image. What would it look like if you "smoothed out" the clouds? Keep the contrast, but dial down the detail significantly. Give the sky a more creamy look in contrast with the jagged, crisp horizon.

Llywellyn

Marc Muench wrote:

Just for example,
I lowered the values of all the highlights except the light and lightened the left hill a tad. Also in your edited version I now notice the mask between the sky and the horizon, on occasion a soft brush at 50% whisked over the transition will do

I always forget about the Shadows/Highlights adjustment and rarely use it. Thank you for the tip and example! Sounds like I've got a bit further to go.

Llywellyn

pathfinder wrote:

Great shot, Kerry.

I am inclined to agree with Schmoo - I think the shoreline and the other building are too dark, compared to the stark whiteness of the lighthouse. I like the intense sky, but miss a bit of the detail hidden in the shadows along the shoreline.

Thanks, Jim. I wasn't sure if you were looking at the original or the edited version, but considering the time of your post I'm going to assume "edited version." Which tells me I can bring up the balance a little more.

jeffmeyers wrote:

Great image. What would it look like if you "smoothed out" the clouds? Keep the contrast, but dial down the detail significantly. Give the sky a more creamy look in contrast with the jagged, crisp horizon.

Interesting idea. I confess I'm a bit in lurve with the detailed clouds, but I might give it a go to see if I like it better. Thank you for the suggestion!