Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 3, 2009, 6:24 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
jachol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. England
Posts: 1,201
Default

I've got to agree with Greg, ... colouring is typical of this moorland habitat in the late summer / early autumn in the UK. When people talk of Englands "green and pleasant land", it's really more applicable to the lowland cultivated, and pastural areas.
As regards to upping saturation during PP, personally I think a lot depends on your subject matter, I certainly wouldn't do anything with Gregs shots, they are very true to life. ... Jack.
jachol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 6:51 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,522
Default

It seems there will always be a conflict between showing the landscape as it really is, or "playing" with the photo for more drama, appeal, etc. I found all three photos very interesting, showing me a part of the world very new to me. Am glad for the accurate rendition, but might also want to see what could be done artistically...
mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 8:08 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Keltech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Andover, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,178
Default

I have to echo what Mole has said. For the most part I like them as they are.

Lou
Keltech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 8:33 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
beachboy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 517
Default

Our perspective of a scene is continually changing. The light varies. Individuals see the same scene differently. It looks different again when we are wearing sun glasses! Two of the above shots are flat. So why not improve them by adjusting brightness/contrast levels? The camera used would have certain settings/defaults. Are they gospel?
Rodney, I think your version of the scene is very nice. I would do it a little differently, as would every photographer.
Just my two bobs worth!
Cheers
bb2
beachboy2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 11:59 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

Rodney: It certainly loks more interesting and punchy, but it's not how it was there .

mtngal: feel free to do anything to it and post it here. I'd like to see what you can come up with.


I'm one for accuracy, even if it makes picture look flat. I literally hate all the overprocessed photos, not only landscapes. Adding a bit of contrast is fine, but adding saturation or playing with colour hue is out of question for me. It all depends on each and every one of us approach to this subject. I'll defend my point like independence .

More english landscapes will follow shortly.

Greg

Last edited by gfurm; Nov 3, 2009 at 12:10 PM.
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 12:27 PM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

I really like #2 for its solid composition and nice color renditions.

and i really like the compositions of 1 and 3.

i am with john on this one. i tend to look at photography as a form of expression rather than documentation. so if i have to sacrifice a little authenticism (is that a word lol) for appeal, then i have no problems. of course this is within reason, if you go overboard then its just overprocessed, which is just as big of a problem as a flat shot. finding that balance is the key.

another thing that john touched on. is you dont even need to do post-processing to improve your color and contrast. coming back at a different day or time of day. adding a circular polarizer. etc.

i really like your edit of the 3rd shot rodney. brings out alot more of the detail that is in the shot.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2009, 10:49 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Ok - here's my minor adjustment. I don't usually add saturation to pictures as its so easy to go overboard with it. But I'm also one who gets things wrong in-camera, either slightly under or overexposing a shot, or getting the white balance wrong. I also try to be very careful with sharpening - it's so easy to get that out of whack also. It's not very different than yours, I just did an overall lightening of it and changed the curve a bit to add a bit more contrast, as I thought the picture a bit underexposed.

I'm interested in presenting a pleasing picture in an artistic way, not in photojournalism. So I have no problem with cloning out a distracting bit of land in the corner of a picture, or an OOF leaf in another.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 9:42 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

mtngal: I like your try better than rodney's. And it looks better than mine without going too far. great job.

greg
gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 12:05 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
jachol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. England
Posts: 1,201
Default

May not be everyones taste, just thought I'd see how it looked in mono, this is just a quick one, it has a lot of potential. In PS I added a b&W layer with a blue filter, then used the burn tool at low opacity to darken the sky area a little for a more dramatic look. ... Jack

Edit. ... With hindsight, I find it looks better with a little noise filtering
Attached Images
 

Last edited by jachol; Nov 4, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Noticed shot could be improved
jachol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2009, 3:23 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I'm glad what I saw in the picture was close to what you wanted to show. The picture was not one that computers could figure out right - I use photoshop's levels adjustment often (the same adjustment is available in PSE). It shows the histogram of your picture, and that showed the lights had no data in it - I just adjusted the slider over to where there was information (here's where the lightest part of the picture should be), which also lightened the whole picture. Levels is my favorite adjustment tool - it's often all that one needs to use for a picture that's a bit underexposed or flat.

Then I went to the curves adjustment to add a bit more contast. The picture can't handle much in my opinion and only adjusted the lights/mid-tones, leaving the shadows alone. I started to try to explain about using curves but gave up - the adjustment I made was small and only took a second, while writing about it was going to take an hour and you would end up being totally confused if you weren't familiar with curves adjustments (and would be unnecessary if you were)!
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.