Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 31, 2006, 12:10 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

I think experimenting to enhance images is perfectly acceptable. For me though any edit on my part is to try to get the final result to match to my best ability the scene I saw before me when I took the picture.

What some have been seeing in the original posted (which was a first edit by the way from the raw image) was that the image was a bit under exposed. Not only that it is also a bit flat.

Below is my most current edit of the image. Let me know what you think. I tried burning and dodging like mentioned above but this yeilded results to me that I thought were unnatural. This result I ended up with to my eyes is closer to what I saw and looks much better than my original edit. I thank everyone for their ideas as it served as inspiration for me. And this by no means is my last edit of the image. It just is where I am currently at. It may or may not be the last:

I look forward to all of your input (and appreciate what has already been offered).

Original on left, current edit on right


Attached Images
 
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2006, 1:58 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



I notice you said the original image was underexposed a bit. Deliberate or unintentional in the raw format? Ifdeliberate what was the reason?Does this one have something to do with ''leeway'' in post production? Just asking because I'm still learning this stuff.

I'm not an optometrist but it seems to me one can never duplicate a scene the human eye sees viewed througha mechanical device, so, as you noted, you were trying to replicate what your eyes saw. However, even the attempt at replication will fall shortbecause you still have to be subjective in the hopes of finding that replication.Having said that,I suppose a scientist armed with all kinds of sophisticated light-sensing equipment will be able to measure the exact wave-length of the color spectrumand then translate this information to the photographer.

This is what I mean about subjective: It's obvious the sky is overcast. I see no evidence of sunshine. So if no visible sunshine is present then to achieve what you think your eye saw can be very difficult with the nuances of that overcastlight falling on the subject and thento make the picture hold up under post-processing.

While I agree your last edited picture looks fine, just as the previous poster's did, it still doesn't give me the right impression. And surely that comment means absolutely nothing to youbecause as I've said on a few occasions I have no credentials to critique the way I do...other than what I see and in the process form a conclusion that's brought about by readingarticles in magazinesand from that make a determination as to what consitutes a winning picture in my mind.

Make no mistake, as noted in my previous post, I see nothing wrong with trying to salvagea bad picture, as recognized bythe photorapher and others, but I'm still not convinced some photographs need to be retouched. (Some more of this subjectivity.)

Finally, a guy I knew in the shop before I retired was talking about spending a thousand dollars on a Nikon F100. (I think that's the model.) And this is a film camera. I asked him why would he want to spend that much for a film camera when he could achieve the same results with digital. He said the photo contestants in his (small?) circle of competitors wantedto be sure none of the nature photographs hadn't been touched by the digital juggernaut of post-processing. With that reasoning I'm sure they had to be aware what film developers do to their product too. :-)
Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2006, 7:57 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Andrew, I'll try to address your questions:

Quote:
I notice you said the original image was underexposed a bit. Deliberate or unintentional in the raw format? If deliberate what was the reason? Does this one have something to do with ''leeway'' in post production? Just asking because I'm still learning this stuff.
This image was both unintentinally and purposesly underexposed in the raw format. The reason for the deliberate underexposure was to maintain highlights in the sky because I thought the clouds added a moodiness to the image. However, at the same time the underexposure of the rest of the picture was more severe. This required me to make some drastic exposure compensation in my RAW processing. Once Done with the original RAW processing I did load the image into Photoshop and did some curves and local contrast enhancement as well as saturation adjustements to yeild the first image shown here. Often It takes me several time looking at a photo later (and realizing possible thing I did wrong) before I create a final edit of the image.

Quote:
I'm not an optometrist but it seems to me one can never duplicate a scene the human eye sees viewed through a mechanical device, so, as you noted, you were trying to replicate what your eyes saw. However, even the attempt at replication will fall short because you still have to be subjective in the hopes of finding that replication. Having said that, I suppose a scientist armed with all kinds of sophisticated light-sensing equipment will be able to measure the exact wave-length of the color spectrum and then translate this information to the photographer.
It is true we can never accurately replicate what our eyes see and often our memory can fail us when doing post processing.


Quote:
This is what I mean about subjective: It's obvious the sky is overcast. I see no evidence of sunshine. So if no visible sunshine is present then to achieve what you think your eye saw can be very difficult with the nuances of that overcast light falling on the subject and then to make the picture hold up under post-processing.
This is true as well. Yes the sky was overcast. In fact it rained a bit before I took this photo, not much, but it did a little. Thus some reflectiveness is understandable in the stone wall for example.

Quote:
While I agree your last edited picture looks fine, just as the previous poster's did, it still doesn't give me the right impression. And surely that comment means absolutely nothing to you because as I've said on a few occasions I have no credentials to critique the way I do...other than what I see and in the process form a conclusion that's brought about by reading articles in magazines and from that make a determination as to what consitutes a winning picture in my mind.
Why would you think your comments mean nothing to me? Credentials don't matter much to me as anyone can fake them online. I post here because I seek opinions that are different from mine. Doing this allows me to look at things in a different light (pun intended :-)) You say that the current edit doesn't give you the right impression? Are you saying the scene looks unnaturally lit? I did post process the image to try to reduce flatness and "haze" in the image to give it more contrast and to make it have more depth. Remember, I had to do some heavy handed exposure fixing in RAW to get the shadow areas (what is now the wall and brick road) to be detailed and easily visible.

Quote:
Make no mistake, as noted in my previous post, I see nothing wrong with trying to salvage a bad picture, as recognized by the photorapher and others, but I'm still not convinced some photographs need to be retouched. (Some more of this subjectivity.)
I am off the opinion that bad pictures aren't worth salvaging because at best you can only turn them into just okay pictures (So really salvaging is only important if the picture is sentimental). However, enhancing good photos can make them become great. Now it is possible to go to far and to over enhance and make a picture look unbelievable or fake. Sometimes we can go overboard and end up getting further away from the ideal that our mind remembers the image being.

I am enjoying this discussing as I find it interesting.

nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2006, 10:22 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



You said, ''You say that the current edit doesn't give you the right impression? Are you saying the scene looks unnaturally lit?''

Only as it regards the ''new'' colors. The new colors, to me, give it that unnatural look which isheavily influenced by the ''original.'' And I will agree now, the original does seem somewhat flat. With this in mind when I sawthe very first imageit didn't in the least appear that way. So in essence, the reworked photograph, if seen as the initial one, does have more punch. But it isn't the first one. :-)

When I walked into the initial topic starter this picture said it was okay to look atit in a rural setting possibly many decades old. The viewer sorts out the many details that encompass the whole, and to be frank, even though I haven't mentioned it before, I did think the beginning left side of the wall was a bit shadowy. However, this only indicated to my non-digital mind the presence of another, hiddentree offering this situation. Even with that the picture was very good.Everything works.

Also, ''I am enjoying this discussing as I find it interesting.''

Ditto. Because you and others are helping me to a huge degree here.

And I'm sure others here too, will be saying, ''Where's this guy coming from. This is the digital age.'' And to that I can give another ditto.

Yes it is a stimulating conversation.:-)



Andrew Waters 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 6:55 AM.