thanks Marc, very interesting to hear.
haha, i will do my best next time not to be associated to "tangency becoming intrusive":D
im affraid i do not have another angle to this overlook. but im happy to report i will return to this place a few more times...:D
lession learned! that image was not thought-out more than 30 seconds, the previous few minutes before just 20 feet away, i was trying to make something happen with composition but it failed... so i moved quickly to this spot and shot off a pano as fast as i could....
then moved to the tree and got a few more shots...and then the show was over....
in-post i lightened up the deep canyon and river alot, so maybe i should go back to "as captured" in that section to allow separation and give it more depth?
oh, one more thing, the lower right corner bothers me. (and the watermark too)
i was thinking about replacing it somehow... or is it not as big of a deal to fret over?
Aaron Nelson
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
oh, one more thing, the lower right corner bothers me. (and the watermark too)
i was thinking about replacing it somehow... or is it not as big of a deal to fret over?
I am not bothered by that corner, but I can imagine when you return if you move left it may help, as the river would protrude from a diff spot as well When I am composing panos in a hurry such as you were, I do take about 30 sec and stop the camera while in live view at every spot prior to shooting, make a mental note of what is being captured, building it together in my mind as much as possible. I am not saying I am some genius who has PT Gui running in my head but, what I am doing is spending just enough time viewing as much of the sections as possible.
Oh the light in this one is soooo nice though, I wish you such wild atmosphere the next time around
As for your name, I am not bothered by that and would encourage it whenever possible.
thank you Marc, i have learned.
now i must apply when under the gun!
i am very grateful for MU.
i hope this version is a little better, if not... no problem, i do plan a reshoot.
(i will just need to do another rain dance the night prior)
before
after
Aaron Nelson
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited January 26, 2009
Aaron,
The new version has moved in the wrong direction:cry I dont think the contrast helped. Now the canyon appears to be darker. Just remember, the sky should remain dark but the horizon area lighter than the FG, this will give you the depth. Try again and this time start from the first version. The mask to lighten the canyon should exclude the river, sky and FG rocks.
3rd try:
a. grad the sky dark to light (top to horizon).
b. removed lightening mask off FG, going natural expo on FG
c. lightend deep canyon with curve, (a mask over river)
d. masked river and inversed to just darken the river lightly with curve
e. brightend the horizon slightly for depth
just send me out to reshoot if i dont get it right this time...
thanks again Marc, i hope this was done better.
Aaron Nelson
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 4, 2009
Ohhhh so close
You need to do one more. I think everything is looking real good, but....
split the diff between the way the FG was in the second version and the third and I think it will be done
This copyright is great.
now here is the image with the FG mask adjusted mid-piont between the two...
also, if i may,
due to Bay-Photo's 1/2 off sale this month im thinking of getting this one done on canvas...
their largest canvas wrap size is 30 x 60 inch.
(following is that crop,) my question is,... does this ratio ruin the composition in your opinion? or would you recommend that i dont crop and use that Santa Barbara guy? or even yet, not print this one and wait to reshoot avoiding the "tangency becoming intrusive" issue.?? (just PM me that opinion if you want)
Thanks!!!
Aaron
30 x 60
Aaron Nelson
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 8, 2009
First of all, good job with the post work here The image is now refined, and I am enjoying it even with the tangency I like it better in its full aspect ratio. Cant you have it printed slightly smaller to keep that format?
Tip - If I were printing this on canvas, even with the very best canvas printers in the world, I would add a bit of contrast too make up for what is lost going to that medium.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 13, 2009
Island lake in the clouds
This situation is everything a landscape photographer hopes for
But I have two issues with the way it is being illustrated here.
First, the composition should have included more around the island leaving space for the viewer to get lost, lost in the mystery of the fog.
Second, this image does not need a black.
Now maybe the island came through an opening in the fog revealing the contrast showing in this image, but I think the mist of the fog would have added so much to this scene.
Have you added the black to the island which means it can be undone, or do you have another exposure where the island was obscured with a bit more fog?
Also, might you have an exposure with more space around the island?
Just a reminder, I select these image because they are provoking, meaning good job
First, thanks for selecting one of my images for critique.
My exposure only has a little bit more room around the island and I will maximize it in the follow up images. I suppose that I could add some canvas as well. What are you thinking about how much of the image the island should occupy?
With regards to the black point in the image, Yes, I added the black in Lightroom by expanding the range of the histogram. On the morning I shot this the light was incredibly flat and the histogram for the original image is fairly narrow and bunched in the middle as I did not properly correct for the lighting. (I'll include an unprocessed image in a follow on posting).
So, in the original submitted image, I added ~ 2 stops of exposure and used the black slider to get to a black point in the image. I also increased mid-tone contrast using the clarity slider.
In the revised image, as you have suggested, I have only added ~1 stop of exposure and made a lot less use of the black slider. There is lots of room to the left in this new histogram. This rendition has more of the foggy mystery you have suggested.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 13, 2009
I am thinking this image needs some masking.
First, I would suggest you view the histogram on your camera display after taking the first exposure in every situation but especially situations in fog and snow. What you want is the RAW files to look like your second example. There is much more data in the highlights of a digital file and if you are going to move the tones around, making them darker is far less intrusive or destructive than making the brighter. Since it is difficult to use the camera display for judging tonality, the histogram is your best option. I usually over expose from the cameras auto default in bright situations by one or two stops. I believe this would have helped you here.
Regarding this exposure, I think you have done a perfect job considering what you started with and the fact that you are using lightroom. What I have discovered is that almost all my images need regional contrast and tone adj and doing so in PS is much more efficient and accurate than the brushes and tools in LR. However, I want to help you best in the software you have available. Do you own PS or just LR?
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 16, 2009
Ken,
I am glad you have posted the alternate versions. When I dont know exactly how to enhance an image, I begin by making a drastic change to the entire image, usually with curves adj layers. However, if you are not familiar with the curves pallet you could use levels. I would rec using curves just for this exercise just to be consistent. I then evaluate each region of the image with the layer on and off to determine if there had been positive changes to any regions. If none, than I may try a change in the other direction. For example, I may lower contrast if I had increased contrast first.
In this situation, because you have the varitations already posted, I thought I would circle the areas I like in the various versions as below.
I have selected the FG with more contrast and the BG with less. I believe this will add the helpful depth to the image. Regarding the composition, I think we can discuss that later with a diff exposure.
The next step is for you to create curves adj layers emulating the changes you have made to the regions in each circled area. Next you would paint away all other areas. There are several details you will need to understand.
Here is a sample of the curve that I found most closely matched your changes made in LR.
1. Once a curves adj layer has been made you will see a rectangular mask within the layer in the layers pallet. In order to paint away or add to the mask you must highlight this rectangle.
2. There are many tools to add and subtract a mask with, but I rec the brush tool that should work for this situation. Make sure that you have the brush tool prefs set to 0% hardness, this will create a nice soft edge to your mask making it very diff for viewers to see where the mask ends and begins. Also the correct diameter of the brush must be large enough that it holds enough pixels to create that nice soft edge.
The curves adj layer sampled above, will be used for the FG and your job will be to paint away the top half of the image basically.
Some tips to make adding and subtracting the mask. Use the bracket keys to enlarge or decrease the size of your bush. Use the X key to toggle between adding and subtracting the mask. Use the numbers on your keyboard to alter the density of the brush, 1 = 10% 2 = 20% and so on.
Now this may seam involved at first, but once you have these moves down it should take you no more time than a few moments. The tricky and time consuming part is the creative/subjective part, which is the fun part.
Please let me know if I have left an important detail out. Regarding the diff between CS3 and CS4 you should have everything available in 3 as 4. I will not have enough space here to properly vent my frustration with the changes Adobe made to the curves pallet in 4:cry
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 16, 2009
Try changing the opacity of the brush to about 30% and paint in some of the trees up into the middle of the island, decreasing the density the higher you go. You want a gradual change bottom to top.
I'm not sure I follow your thinking. Are you suggesting that the gradual change be across (top to bottom) the island and not the reflection? And that there be more mist at the water/horizion line and less at the tops of the trees?
Hopefully you will see this sometime today, so that I can give your suggestions a shot this evening when I get home. I appreciate all the time you are taking with this image.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 17, 2009
Figured it would be easier for you to see a before and after is below. I have included the layer pallet to show you the mask. The black section is what has been painted away.
What I have done is create more contrast in the bottom third of the image. This cont curve is gradated from the bottom of the island to the top and curved around the edge of the island slightly as I hope the image of the layers pallet shows above. If you prefer more contrast in the island than you could simply add more of the mask, (make white again)
Please feel free to post your results here when finished, even if you like something a bit diff. I have noticed some slight color changes being invoked because of the added contrast. This could be removed in such neutral areas as fog like here by masking again and instead of using curves select Hue/Sat and lowering the saturation a bit.
Some may find it easier to do in LR. BUT, I have noticed the edges of the mask's made in LR when I go to print, something not always visible on the internet. Also I find the brushes and gradients veeeerrrrryyyy slow in LR even on my new tower, well one year old tower that is
Well, now I think I have the idea. This image has been reconverted from the original raw (CR2) file in ACR, during which I opened up the exposure similar to what I had done in LR. I applied the curve adjustment layer to add contrast and then masked it out over the island with a varying opacity brush, with less opacity near the waterline until full opacity at the op of the island and beyond. I also did an adjustment layer and mask to remove some of the color cast from the foggy areas.
I think this is an improved rendition of the originally posted image. The island has a more mysterious, foggy atmosphere.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this "final" (?) version of the image. Thanks again for your help and guidance.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 18, 2009
Your final version is much better I like the added space but there is a slight line down the right side which could be taken out very easily. When you shoot next time, just consider placing the subject in the corners and shoot a few in every corner. When you throw away the bad ones over and over for a few years the process will help you find the composition in the first place.
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited February 24, 2009
Great image
composition, aspect ratio and light are all well thought out.
The only change I recommend is too capture this image with multiple exposures and blend in post in order to reduce noise in the shadows. What camera did you use? What was your method for exposing?
composition, aspect ratio and light are all well thought out.
The only change I recommend is too capture this image with multiple exposures and blend in post in order to reduce noise in the shadows. What camera did you use? What was your method for exposing?
Marc,
Well first off, thank you so much for doing this, it means a lot to have your critique. Now for the embarrassment.. The picture was taken last December with a Sony A700 and kit lens. Landscape settings. This was a crop from another picture. I used tone curves and bumped the exposure up about 1/3. Also some increase in contrast. Being very new to all this, one other thing l've learned is, "keep notes". They really help when someone asks how you did it! There are some other fog shots here including original. http://www.dreamvalleyphotography.com. Ernie
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited March 3, 2009
I normally dont include images outside of the university gallery, but felt that it was worth the deviation of protocol Your image posted in this gallery is unique and as I mentioned well composed with the fog, trees and hills. However, this image below is even more dramatic and telling.
Maybe you did not post this image for some other reason but I felt it was worth sharing anyway.
This is a beautiful image
But in addition to sharing this image for its positive quailties I wanted to make the following point about working with different types of cameras.
One of the difficult aspects of photography is that there are so many aspects For example, how to optimize certain types of cameras. Most digital cameras under $1k have smaller censors making images of fog appear noisy, coupled with poor software to process the RAW files if even available make that fog shot especially noisy. This holds true to all neutral smooth surfaces not just fog, such as sky, reflecting water or even worse skin tone. In addition, the best cameras will struggle with this situation.
The image I have posted of yours above, assuming it was taken with the same camera, utilizes your cameras technology in more positive ways. First, the contrast did not have to be added to the image in post, avoiding extra noise. Second, The continuous tones or smooth areas are darker, also hiding any noise.
When I shoot with my point and shoot cameras, I usually compose differently, forcing objects larger and avoiding the compositions that require the viewers attention to small subjects, and especially trying to avoid those large smooth dark surfaces. If I have no choice and need to get the shot, I attempt to take multiple exposures and blend later.
I normally dont include images outside of the university gallery, but felt that it was worth the deviation of protocol Your image posted in this gallery is unique and as I mentioned well composed with the fog, trees and hills. However, this image below is even more dramatic and telling.
Maybe you did not post this image for some other reason but I felt it was worth sharing anyway.
This is a beautiful image
But in addition to sharing this image for its positive quailties I wanted to make the following point about working with different types of cameras.
One of the difficult aspects of photography is that there are so many aspects For example, how to optimize certain types of cameras. Most digital cameras under $1k have smaller censors making images of fog appear noisy, coupled with poor software to process the RAW files if even available make that fog shot especially noisy. This holds true to all neutral smooth surfaces not just fog, such as sky, reflecting water or even worse skin tone. In addition, the best cameras will struggle with this situation.
The image I have posted of yours above, assuming it was taken with the same camera, utilizes your cameras technology in more positive ways. First, the contrast did not have to be added to the image in post, avoiding extra noise. Second, The continuous tones or smooth areas are darker, also hiding any noise.
When I shoot with my point and shoot cameras, I usually compose differently, forcing objects larger and avoiding the compositions that require the viewers attention to small subjects, and especially trying to avoid those large smooth dark surfaces. If I have no choice and need to get the shot, I attempt to take multiple exposures and blend later.
It looks like you have quite a backyard
Marc,
This photo and the one l posted for critique were taken on the same day. Early morning fog was rolling in very quickly from the south, first picture. Also from the east coming over the hills, the picture you chose. I tried to capture as many shots as possible, about fifty l recall. I exposed and shot for fog, shadows and sunrise. Later deciding which was best. As to blending, l will definitely give it a try. I see what you mean that it would enhance the shot. Bracketing is on my to do list, thanks. As to my back yard, we live 26 miles from the nearest town. Lots of country, very fortunate. All the sunset/sunrise and fog pictures you saw were taken literally from there. Thank You, Ernie
0
Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited March 18, 2009
There are so many good aspects to this image
Well composed
Well exposed
Well processed
Great atmosphere in the sky
Great time of the evening
The rocks are positioned in balance, not dead center and not in the corner
The horizon is placed above center, not drawing attention to it
The shutter speed is wonderful, giving nice movement to the water. If the time were longer the water would have become featureless.
Is this your first attempt at water motion or have you worked this situation before?
There are so many good aspects to this image
Well composed
Well exposed
Well processed
Great atmosphere in the sky
Great time of the evening
The rocks are positioned in balance, not dead center and not in the corner
The horizon is placed above center, not drawing attention to it
The shutter speed is wonderful, giving nice movement to the water. If the time were longer the water would have become featureless.
Is this your first attempt at water motion or have you worked this situation before?
Thanks Marc! This was definitely not my first attempt. Been heading to that beach frequently at sunset for the past year or so, this night produced the most winners by far. It is actually 2 exposures that I masked off right at the horizon. I tried to slow down and focus mostly on composition and resist the urge to be constantly pointing the camera at something else. Took roughly 50 different shots with this framing, waves coming in, waves going out, fast shutter, slow shutter, etc. this one turned out to be my favorite.
Thanks Marc! This was definitely not my first attempt. Been heading to that beach frequently at sunset for the past year or so, this night produced the most winners by far. It is actually 2 exposures that I masked off right at the horizon. I tried to slow down and focus mostly on composition and resist the urge to be constantly pointing the camera at something else. Took roughly 50 different shots with this framing, waves coming in, waves going out, fast shutter, slow shutter, etc. this one turned out to be my favorite.
Great wisdom, that is slowing down You spent time working the image till you got something purposeful. It is way to easy these days to shoot and run, especially with the ease of which picture taking has become. Your masking technique worked very well and a perfect method for this composition. If you would, please post several other time exposures with diff motion, I am curious to see.
Comments
haha, i will do my best next time not to be associated to "tangency becoming intrusive":D
im affraid i do not have another angle to this overlook. but im happy to report i will return to this place a few more times...:D
lession learned! that image was not thought-out more than 30 seconds, the previous few minutes before just 20 feet away, i was trying to make something happen with composition but it failed... so i moved quickly to this spot and shot off a pano as fast as i could....
then moved to the tree and got a few more shots...and then the show was over....
in-post i lightened up the deep canyon and river alot, so maybe i should go back to "as captured" in that section to allow separation and give it more depth?
thank you for your time, greatly appreciated.
i was thinking about replacing it somehow... or is it not as big of a deal to fret over?
I am not bothered by that corner, but I can imagine when you return if you move left it may help, as the river would protrude from a diff spot as well
Oh the light in this one is soooo nice though, I wish you such wild atmosphere the next time around
As for your name, I am not bothered by that and would encourage it whenever possible.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
now i must apply when under the gun!
i am very grateful for MU.
i hope this version is a little better, if not... no problem, i do plan a reshoot.
(i will just need to do another rain dance the night prior)
before
after
The new version has moved in the wrong direction:cry I dont think the contrast helped. Now the canyon appears to be darker. Just remember, the sky should remain dark but the horizon area lighter than the FG, this will give you the depth. Try again and this time start from the first version. The mask to lighten the canyon should exclude the river, sky and FG rocks.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
second
3rd try:
a. grad the sky dark to light (top to horizon).
b. removed lightening mask off FG, going natural expo on FG
c. lightend deep canyon with curve, (a mask over river)
d. masked river and inversed to just darken the river lightly with curve
e. brightend the horizon slightly for depth
just send me out to reshoot if i dont get it right this time...
thanks again Marc, i hope this was done better.
You need to do one more. I think everything is looking real good, but....
split the diff between the way the FG was in the second version and the third and I think it will be done
This copyright is great.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
now here is the image with the FG mask adjusted mid-piont between the two...
also, if i may,
due to Bay-Photo's 1/2 off sale this month im thinking of getting this one done on canvas...
their largest canvas wrap size is 30 x 60 inch.
(following is that crop,) my question is,... does this ratio ruin the composition in your opinion? or would you recommend that i dont crop and use that Santa Barbara guy? or even yet, not print this one and wait to reshoot avoiding the "tangency becoming intrusive" issue.?? (just PM me that opinion if you want)
Thanks!!!
Aaron
30 x 60
Tip - If I were printing this on canvas, even with the very best canvas printers in the world, I would add a bit of contrast too make up for what is lost going to that medium.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
This situation is everything a landscape photographer hopes for
But I have two issues with the way it is being illustrated here.
First, the composition should have included more around the island leaving space for the viewer to get lost, lost in the mystery of the fog.
Second, this image does not need a black.
Now maybe the island came through an opening in the fog revealing the contrast showing in this image, but I think the mist of the fog would have added so much to this scene.
Have you added the black to the island which means it can be undone, or do you have another exposure where the island was obscured with a bit more fog?
Also, might you have an exposure with more space around the island?
Just a reminder, I select these image because they are provoking, meaning good job
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
First, thanks for selecting one of my images for critique.
My exposure only has a little bit more room around the island and I will maximize it in the follow up images. I suppose that I could add some canvas as well. What are you thinking about how much of the image the island should occupy?
With regards to the black point in the image, Yes, I added the black in Lightroom by expanding the range of the histogram. On the morning I shot this the light was incredibly flat and the histogram for the original image is fairly narrow and bunched in the middle as I did not properly correct for the lighting. (I'll include an unprocessed image in a follow on posting).
So, in the original submitted image, I added ~ 2 stops of exposure and used the black slider to get to a black point in the image. I also increased mid-tone contrast using the clarity slider.
In the revised image, as you have suggested, I have only added ~1 stop of exposure and made a lot less use of the black slider. There is lots of room to the left in this new histogram. This rendition has more of the foggy mystery you have suggested.
What do you think at this point?
Thanks,
Ken
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
Here is the unprocessed image without the increases in exposure and contrast.
Ken
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
First, I would suggest you view the histogram on your camera display after taking the first exposure in every situation but especially situations in fog and snow. What you want is the RAW files to look like your second example. There is much more data in the highlights of a digital file and if you are going to move the tones around, making them darker is far less intrusive or destructive than making the brighter. Since it is difficult to use the camera display for judging tonality, the histogram is your best option. I usually over expose from the cameras auto default in bright situations by one or two stops. I believe this would have helped you here.
Regarding this exposure, I think you have done a perfect job considering what you started with and the fact that you are using lightroom. What I have discovered is that almost all my images need regional contrast and tone adj and doing so in PS is much more efficient and accurate than the brushes and tools in LR. However, I want to help you best in the software you have available. Do you own PS or just LR?
And we can go from there.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Yes, I have full Photoshop CS3. I must confess that my masking skills are not great.
What areas of this image do you see benefiting from regional contrast and tone adjustments? Do you have a suggestion on how to proceed?
Thanks
Ken
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
I am glad you have posted the alternate versions. When I dont know exactly how to enhance an image, I begin by making a drastic change to the entire image, usually with curves adj layers. However, if you are not familiar with the curves pallet you could use levels. I would rec using curves just for this exercise just to be consistent. I then evaluate each region of the image with the layer on and off to determine if there had been positive changes to any regions. If none, than I may try a change in the other direction. For example, I may lower contrast if I had increased contrast first.
In this situation, because you have the varitations already posted, I thought I would circle the areas I like in the various versions as below.
I have selected the FG with more contrast and the BG with less. I believe this will add the helpful depth to the image. Regarding the composition, I think we can discuss that later with a diff exposure.
The next step is for you to create curves adj layers emulating the changes you have made to the regions in each circled area. Next you would paint away all other areas. There are several details you will need to understand.
Here is a sample of the curve that I found most closely matched your changes made in LR.
1. Once a curves adj layer has been made you will see a rectangular mask within the layer in the layers pallet. In order to paint away or add to the mask you must highlight this rectangle.
2. There are many tools to add and subtract a mask with, but I rec the brush tool that should work for this situation. Make sure that you have the brush tool prefs set to 0% hardness, this will create a nice soft edge to your mask making it very diff for viewers to see where the mask ends and begins. Also the correct diameter of the brush must be large enough that it holds enough pixels to create that nice soft edge.
The curves adj layer sampled above, will be used for the FG and your job will be to paint away the top half of the image basically.
Some tips to make adding and subtracting the mask. Use the bracket keys to enlarge or decrease the size of your bush. Use the X key to toggle between adding and subtracting the mask. Use the numbers on your keyboard to alter the density of the brush, 1 = 10% 2 = 20% and so on.
Now this may seam involved at first, but once you have these moves down it should take you no more time than a few moments. The tricky and time consuming part is the creative/subjective part, which is the fun part.
Please let me know if I have left an important detail out. Regarding the diff between CS3 and CS4 you should have everything available in 3 as 4. I will not have enough space here to properly vent my frustration with the changes Adobe made to the curves pallet in 4:cry
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I followed you instructions and applied the curve adjustment and removed the effect with a mask from the upper part of the island.
Somehow it doesn't seem to me that the lower half has enough contrast at this point. What do you think?
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I am at work and just saw your reply, thanks.
I'm not sure I follow your thinking. Are you suggesting that the gradual change be across (top to bottom) the island and not the reflection? And that there be more mist at the water/horizion line and less at the tops of the trees?
Hopefully you will see this sometime today, so that I can give your suggestions a shot this evening when I get home. I appreciate all the time you are taking with this image.
Thanks again,
Ken
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
What I have done is create more contrast in the bottom third of the image. This cont curve is gradated from the bottom of the island to the top and curved around the edge of the island slightly as I hope the image of the layers pallet shows above. If you prefer more contrast in the island than you could simply add more of the mask, (make white again)
Please feel free to post your results here when finished, even if you like something a bit diff. I have noticed some slight color changes being invoked because of the added contrast. This could be removed in such neutral areas as fog like here by masking again and instead of using curves select Hue/Sat and lowering the saturation a bit.
Some may find it easier to do in LR. BUT, I have noticed the edges of the mask's made in LR when I go to print, something not always visible on the internet. Also I find the brushes and gradients veeeerrrrryyyy slow in LR even on my new tower, well one year old tower that is
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Well, now I think I have the idea. This image has been reconverted from the original raw (CR2) file in ACR, during which I opened up the exposure similar to what I had done in LR. I applied the curve adjustment layer to add contrast and then masked it out over the island with a varying opacity brush, with less opacity near the waterline until full opacity at the op of the island and beyond. I also did an adjustment layer and mask to remove some of the color cast from the foggy areas.
I think this is an improved rendition of the originally posted image. The island has a more mysterious, foggy atmosphere.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this "final" (?) version of the image. Thanks again for your help and guidance.
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
I also tried your suggestion of having more room around the island. I added canvas on the right and bottom and filled it in with a nearby selection.
I think this adds to the mystery of the island in the clouds.
Ken
KenK Photography - Lehigh Valley, PA
http://kenkphotography.smugmug.com
Great work and glad you enjoyed the process
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Great image
composition, aspect ratio and light are all well thought out.
The only change I recommend is too capture this image with multiple exposures and blend in post in order to reduce noise in the shadows. What camera did you use? What was your method for exposing?
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Marc,
Well first off, thank you so much for doing this, it means a lot to have your critique. Now for the embarrassment.. The picture was taken last December with a Sony A700 and kit lens. Landscape settings. This was a crop from another picture. I used tone curves and bumped the exposure up about 1/3. Also some increase in contrast. Being very new to all this, one other thing l've learned is, "keep notes". They really help when someone asks how you did it! There are some other fog shots here including original. http://www.dreamvalleyphotography.com. Ernie
Maybe you did not post this image for some other reason but I felt it was worth sharing anyway.
This is a beautiful image
But in addition to sharing this image for its positive quailties I wanted to make the following point about working with different types of cameras.
One of the difficult aspects of photography is that there are so many aspects
The image I have posted of yours above, assuming it was taken with the same camera, utilizes your cameras technology in more positive ways. First, the contrast did not have to be added to the image in post, avoiding extra noise. Second, The continuous tones or smooth areas are darker, also hiding any noise.
When I shoot with my point and shoot cameras, I usually compose differently, forcing objects larger and avoiding the compositions that require the viewers attention to small subjects, and especially trying to avoid those large smooth dark surfaces. If I have no choice and need to get the shot, I attempt to take multiple exposures and blend later.
It looks like you have quite a backyard
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Marc,
This photo and the one l posted for critique were taken on the same day. Early morning fog was rolling in very quickly from the south, first picture. Also from the east coming over the hills, the picture you chose. I tried to capture as many shots as possible, about fifty l recall. I exposed and shot for fog, shadows and sunrise. Later deciding which was best. As to blending, l will definitely give it a try. I see what you mean that it would enhance the shot. Bracketing is on my to do list, thanks. As to my back yard, we live 26 miles from the nearest town. Lots of country, very fortunate. All the sunset/sunrise and fog pictures you saw were taken literally from there. Thank You, Ernie
There are so many good aspects to this image
Well composed
Well exposed
Well processed
Great atmosphere in the sky
Great time of the evening
The rocks are positioned in balance, not dead center and not in the corner
The horizon is placed above center, not drawing attention to it
The shutter speed is wonderful, giving nice movement to the water. If the time were longer the water would have become featureless.
Is this your first attempt at water motion or have you worked this situation before?
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Thanks Marc! This was definitely not my first attempt. Been heading to that beach frequently at sunset for the past year or so, this night produced the most winners by far. It is actually 2 exposures that I masked off right at the horizon. I tried to slow down and focus mostly on composition and resist the urge to be constantly pointing the camera at something else. Took roughly 50 different shots with this framing, waves coming in, waves going out, fast shutter, slow shutter, etc. this one turned out to be my favorite.
Great wisdom, that is slowing down
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
1
2
3
4
5
6
7