Opinion on RAW and PS treatment of this shot

Stustaff

Hi this is my first RAW shot/s been playing around also starting to use PS more now.
First I'll post the final worked on shot to get your opinions on it, and then I will post the the original in a bit.

Please let me know what you think, focus is more on the treatment of the shot rather than the actual shot.

Cheers

Richard

Stustaff wrote:

Please let me know what you think, focus is more on the treatment of the shot rather than the actual shot.

Without seeing the original--or knowing what your intentions were--it's a little hard to comment. Nevertheless, to my eye, this could use a bit of pop. It seems to be rather flat, both in color and in contrast. There is a good tutorial on Dgrin here.

I took the liberty of giving your pic a quick revision using the three steps I generally follow...send me a PM if you object and I'll take it down.



First, I converted it to LAB and boosted the color by steepening the A and B curves by about 15%. Then I tweaked the L curve slightly to give it a bit more contrast. Finally, I applied high radius, low amount USM to improve the contrast a bit more (amount=20, radius=50, threshold=0). The whole process took about two minutes. The results here are a little heavy handed, but you could easily back off the changes to suit your taste.

There are many other ways of accomplishing the same thing, of course. If you are not comfortable working in LAB, you could stay in RGB and play around with saturation, curves and various overlay modes. And I'm sure that other people will offer other suggestions. In the end, what is most important is that you like the end result.

Regards,

Stustaff

Hmmm thanks, when I post the original you will see that it kind of goes -

original - Mine - Yours in terms of colour contrast and 'pop'

looking from mine to yours looks an improvement, looking from the original to mine looks an improvemnet,, my only thought is that yours is a little to far from the original for me to be comfortable..BUT the more I look at it the more I like/prefer it!

Maybe I need to forget the original when doing my post processing and keep pushing until its 'right' irrelevant of whether that means its very different from the orignal!?

I will post the original later as its at home and cant access it right now.

Thanks for making me think rsinmadrid, and thanks for the little tips an ideal place to start experiment with.

gus

I did pretty well what you did richard but then i really sat & looked at your version v's the original of stustaff & without strong light its a hard call for me to offer improvements. I grew up on a large farm & wheat/oats/barley stuble actually has that pale whitish look to it that we can see in the original.

Just thinking allowed.

Stustaff

kind of close to my point of view Gus about considering what the image actually looked like at the time.
If I compare the original(actually stood there looking with my eyes) to the two treatments mine is closer...but the one richad did maybe looks 'nicer'.

So which is the 'best' I guess thats real subjective!

to get away from the colour issue I did also do a [EMAIL="B@W"]B@W[/EMAIL] conversion

Richard

gus wrote:

I grew up on a large farm & wheat/oats/barley stuble actually has that pale whitish look to it that we can see in the original.

Right...I grew up in Chicago looking at big ol' American cars in bright colors. I tried to show Stustaff some alternative treatment, but if a flatter look is closer to what the scene looked like, well, cool.

Stustaff

rsinmadrid wrote:

Right...I grew up in Chicago looking at big ol' American cars in bright colors. I tried to show Stustaff some alternative treatment, but if a flatter look is closer to what the scene looked like, well, cool.

yeh do try to remember im in england! everything looks flat due to the clouds.

Richard as i posted earlier your treament makes it a very nice image. you didnt have the reality to compare it too!

Which does make me think Do I want to create images of reality... or images full stop!?

I feel almost like its a bit of a turning point for me at this early stage...

Richard

Stustaff wrote:

Which does make me think Do I want to create images of reality... or images full stop!?
.

Ahh...there's a good question for you. Whichever you want, I suppose. You also don't have to make it a rule. Sometimes real trumps pretty, sometimes it doesn't. I usually just wing it, mucking about till I get something I like. I don't think there's any particular virtue to that approach. It's just more fun for me that way. I don't doubt that real photographers take a more disciplined approach.

01af

Stustaff wrote:

... looking from mine to yours looks an improvement ...

Not to me. I feel your version looks very good, very natural and convincing. Colour and contrast are slightly laid-back ... but that's how the real world is. We tend to prefer both colour and contrast to be 'bigger than life' in photographs, and beginners often over-do post-processing. That's what happened in Richard's version---although I believe in this case, he was deliberately over-doing the processing in order just to make his point clearer.

Personally, I feel your version does not need any further post-processing in order to look good. Increase colour saturation and/or contrast only if you need it to make a particular artistic point. If, however, your point simpy is to show a little piece of nature the way it appeared to your eye (or the way you think it appeared to your eye) then leave it the way it is.

Stustaff wrote:

... yours is a little to far from the original for me to be comfortable. But the more I look at it the more I like/prefer it!

If that's the case then why not create a third version, with some added 'pop' but less than in Richard's version? It's done in a few minutes, and discarted in seconds if you don't like the result.

Stustaff wrote:

Maybe I need to forget the original when doing my post-processing and keep pushing until its 'right' irrelevant of whether that means its very different from the orignal!?

Yes, definitely! It's Ansel Adams who back in the 1940s/'50s taught that in photography there is no such thing as 'the original.' Whatever image you come up with, be it from the wet darkroom, from a one-hour lab at the mall, or from Photoshop, it will have only a vague resemblance with 'the original' which is the real-life scenery you aimed your lens at. By the time you have the photograph in your hand, the actual scenery has gone anyway; it persists only inside your head.

So creating an image using the means of photography does not mean 'sticking to the original.' There simply is no original you may stick to. It means visualizing an image and then use your craft to actually create it.

And 'the craft' may or may not include Photoshop. Keep in mind that simply framing the subject in your camera's viewfinder already is an act of subjectification, or interpretation, of the phenomenon we tend to call 'reality.' Once you understand this, you'll have less problems making deliberate use of Tones and Curves in Photoshop.

-- Olaf
______________________________________________
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." (John Lennon)

Stustaff

Wow interesting thanks Olaf

wxwax

I quite like it.

Were it me, I'd fiddle to make the sky a richer blue. And I might try to pump the gold color a bit, to emphasize the blue/gold combo, which is pleasing. Perhaps a bit more pop, but definitely not as much as Richard's version.

Alternatively, you might have fun playing with toning the shot a bit. Andy does this a lot, often to good effect.

Stustaff

Thanks, not sure what you mean by toning? exampe?

wxwax

Stustaff wrote:

Thanks, not sure what you mean by toning? exampe?

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2068

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2063

Stustaff

good links thanks!

I will play tonight and finally post the original shot!

claudermilk

I pretty much had the same thoughs as Sid. If it were me, I'd end up somewhere in between the two versions; to my eye Richard's edit is a little over the top (has the over-processed look), while the original edit is a bit flat. Now taking Richard's edit & switching it to B&W or even a sepia-toned covnersion might look pretty darn good.

Stustaff

well here is the original shot.
I will play with toning later and post that too, thanks everyone for the tips help comments so far.

wxwax

Goodness, that's very blue. Nice job job getting the image to where you did.

Stustaff

wxwax wrote:

Goodness, that's very blue. Nice job job getting the image to where you did.

Thanks, now I look at them all in one place there is a big difference isnt there! Im fairly chuffed but think it can still be better! so off I go

Richard

Stustaff wrote:

Thanks, now I look at them all in one place there is a big difference isnt there! Im fairly chuffed but think it can still be better! so off I go

Wow, there certainly is. Had I seen only the original, I think I would have probably tried to do a B&W conversion straight away. I agree with Sid that you did a fine job with your adjustments. Be sure to post your final version and let us know why you chose it.

Cheers,

Stustaff

Thanks what is your opinion on the b&w shot posted earlier?

Richard

Stustaff wrote:

Thanks what is your opinion on the b&w shot posted earlier?

It's pretty good. A little more shadow contrast might bring out the detail. I would try to do something to preserve the clouds, in particular, even if it required using a mask to treat the sky separately. The conversion you did makes it look like a very bright day with the sun completely overhead. I think it would also be possible to make it look like an overcast day with a storm threatening. But again, I wasn't there and don't know what the scene really looked like and it's up to you to decide what the image should convey.

Regards,

thebigsky

Stustaff wrote:

yeh do try to remember im in england! everything looks flat due to the clouds.

I can't let you get away with that, we've just had one of the hottest July's on record, it's hardly been cloudy? Try shooting early morning or late evening, the light's far from flat then.

Stustaff

Yeh it has been lovely and hot July was fantastic, last couple of weeks though have been cloudy and rainy all day in Derbyshire unfortunately.

01af

Stustaff wrote:

well here is the original shot.
I will play with toning later and post that too ...

How do you like this version (see attachment)? I tried to improve the colour of the field but leaving it laid-back still, similar to your first version. Ummm, maybe it's too laid-back ... but I like my version as long as I don't compare it directly to the versions at the beginning of this thread. Then I put some effort into the sky, accentuating the clouds.

-- Olaf

wxwax

Stustaff wrote:

Thanks what is your opinion on the b&w shot posted earlier?

Not for me. Why do it? The colors are complementary and attractive.