This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243300 I took this photo in my usual style of point, shoot and look later. But I'd quite like to print it, do you think it needs editing in anyway?
Cheers
Cheers
In reply to Matt Amos:
It's an ace photo and I can see why you want a print on the wall; unfortunately, I'm not your man for advice.
But just to say, I asked pretty much the same question a few weeks ago and got a tremendous response. A very decent guy - who I won't obligate by naming - even took the photo and tweaked it, with an explanation of how and why. As a result, I'm getting to grips with editing, having previously dismissed it out of hand as 'cheating'.
Photography is very well represented on here - you'll get brilliant advice.
<bump>
Martin
It's an ace photo and I can see why you want a print on the wall; unfortunately, I'm not your man for advice.
But just to say, I asked pretty much the same question a few weeks ago and got a tremendous response. A very decent guy - who I won't obligate by naming - even took the photo and tweaked it, with an explanation of how and why. As a result, I'm getting to grips with editing, having previously dismissed it out of hand as 'cheating'.
Photography is very well represented on here - you'll get brilliant advice.
<bump>
Martin
In reply to Matt Amos:
All digital images need editing. How you should edit depends on a - what medium its shot in (raw vs jpeg) and b what you intend to do with it.
at the very least it would probably benefit for a wee boost in levels and contrast and sharpening.
How big is the file and how large do you want it printed?
All digital images need editing. How you should edit depends on a - what medium its shot in (raw vs jpeg) and b what you intend to do with it.
at the very least it would probably benefit for a wee boost in levels and contrast and sharpening.
How big is the file and how large do you want it printed?
In reply to Matt Amos:
I think it does. It's a great photo but somehow it looks a bit too vertically long. But it's a difficult edit. There are 3 areas of interest that are sort of separate. The clouds, the distant mountains and the foreground triangle with its steps. Possibly a little off the top - leaving just a bit of the arcing white cloud? Try a range of crops, come back to them, and see how you feel.
I wouldn't touch the levels or contrast at all. It has a air of slight menace which the greyness emphasises - the weather could go downhill quick. Or the sharpening. It doesn't need any effects added.
I think it does. It's a great photo but somehow it looks a bit too vertically long. But it's a difficult edit. There are 3 areas of interest that are sort of separate. The clouds, the distant mountains and the foreground triangle with its steps. Possibly a little off the top - leaving just a bit of the arcing white cloud? Try a range of crops, come back to them, and see how you feel.
I wouldn't touch the levels or contrast at all. It has a air of slight menace which the greyness emphasises - the weather could go downhill quick. Or the sharpening. It doesn't need any effects added.
Post edited at 20:34
In reply to Matt Amos:
Doesn't need cropping at all. I would add a slight bit of contrast, thats all.
If you wanted to send me the original i could check and tweak it and send it back.
Doesn't need cropping at all. I would add a slight bit of contrast, thats all.
If you wanted to send me the original i could check and tweak it and send it back.
Cheers everyone.
Being a true punter it is a JPEG photo.
I have been playing aroung with it a little, I do like it a tad cropped.
Pylon King, that would be awesome, it would be great to see what someone else would do to it.
Being a true punter it is a JPEG photo.
I have been playing aroung with it a little, I do like it a tad cropped.
Pylon King, that would be awesome, it would be great to see what someone else would do to it.
In reply to Matt Amos:
If it is a jpeg always save a copy and then male adjustments to that. Jpeg is a lossy format and degrades each time you save.
If it is a jpeg always save a copy and then male adjustments to that. Jpeg is a lossy format and degrades each time you save.
In reply to Matt Amos:
I'd increase saturation on the blue (sky) and also darken the blue a little. I'd also add a little sharpening on the bottom 1/3 (Foreground.)Possibly / probably graduated.
I'd happily have a crack at if if you like.
Thanks to all those here who have offered me help and advice on such matters in the past.
I'd increase saturation on the blue (sky) and also darken the blue a little. I'd also add a little sharpening on the bottom 1/3 (Foreground.)Possibly / probably graduated.
I'd happily have a crack at if if you like.
Thanks to all those here who have offered me help and advice on such matters in the past.
In reply to stroppygob:
For anyone who offered to have a look, I have put it (and my attempt) on dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o4i0bcxumr338gn/AADJtjsPNXTx6MfGl8ChecE0a
Thanks everyone
For anyone who offered to have a look, I have put it (and my attempt) on dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o4i0bcxumr338gn/AADJtjsPNXTx6MfGl8ChecE0a
Thanks everyone
In reply to Matt Amos:
Sorry, nothing to add in terms of editing, but I'd quite like to see some of the outcomes.
Gotta love UKC at times
Sorry, nothing to add in terms of editing, but I'd quite like to see some of the outcomes.
Gotta love UKC at times
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Yup, good helpful responses.
Much more positive than other forum areas at times.
Yup, good helpful responses.
Much more positive than other forum areas at times.
In reply to Matt Amos:
The main thing I would do is get rid of the blue cast - snow should be white!
Auto-levels or auto-colour in Photoshop will do that with one click.
Chris
The main thing I would do is get rid of the blue cast - snow should be white!
Auto-levels or auto-colour in Photoshop will do that with one click.
Chris
In reply to Matt Amos:
I had a quick go. Maybe mine is a bit too blue but I think by the time it's printed and on the wall and being viewed in natural light rather than glowing off my monitor, it'll be "calmed down"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/14594030038/
I had a quick go. Maybe mine is a bit too blue but I think by the time it's printed and on the wall and being viewed in natural light rather than glowing off my monitor, it'll be "calmed down"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-straggler/14594030038/
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Debatable!
If snow's lit by blue sky (not direct sunlight), it will look blue.
I normally only partially correct colour casts, unless I want a very clinical look.
> The main thing I would do is get rid of the blue cast - snow should be white!
Debatable!
If snow's lit by blue sky (not direct sunlight), it will look blue.
I normally only partially correct colour casts, unless I want a very clinical look.
In reply to Matt Amos:
The sky is terrific, and suits a dramatic "fine art" black and white approach.
Compositionally, there is a "dead" area of cloud with almost no detail centre left, and the foreground is quite bright, so it tends to be a bit "sky heavy".
So here's a more radical interpretation - I've made a crop, converted to black and white, added a little tone back in and done various "dodging and burning" tweaks, along the lines of traditional black and white hand printing. (link to follow once image approved by UKC...)
The sky is terrific, and suits a dramatic "fine art" black and white approach.
Compositionally, there is a "dead" area of cloud with almost no detail centre left, and the foreground is quite bright, so it tends to be a bit "sky heavy".
So here's a more radical interpretation - I've made a crop, converted to black and white, added a little tone back in and done various "dodging and burning" tweaks, along the lines of traditional black and white hand printing. (link to follow once image approved by UKC...)
In reply to Matt Amos:
Here is my effort.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3yg7x6rlx74qphn/DanA.jpg
I tried to increase the contrast amongst the whites (levels in PS) to bring out the mist and the subtle details in the snow.
Then I used a big dollop of clarity in LR bring out the sky and other details.
Cropping the messy snow out of the foreground just leaves the path on the ridge- which leads the eye into the picture more.
Disclaimer - I probably wouldn't usually go quite so far as this, but felt like having a play.
Here is my effort.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3yg7x6rlx74qphn/DanA.jpg
I tried to increase the contrast amongst the whites (levels in PS) to bring out the mist and the subtle details in the snow.
Then I used a big dollop of clarity in LR bring out the sky and other details.
Cropping the messy snow out of the foreground just leaves the path on the ridge- which leads the eye into the picture more.
Disclaimer - I probably wouldn't usually go quite so far as this, but felt like having a play.
In reply to Matt Amos:
Just got on and got the link, will have a shot at it when I get home this evening.
Just got on and got the link, will have a shot at it when I get home this evening.
In reply to Matt Amos:
So here's my edited version;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243557
So here's my edited version;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243557
In reply to Matt Amos:
Hey Matt
Really like the image. I couldn't find a crop that improved it for me (left hand side makes it really hard) and I think it works well as is.
... Though I like Dan Arkle's ethereal cropped version, nice.
Here's my quick straightforward 5 min B&W edit.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6c1vjj48n6xxd6z/DSCF0821.jpg
(may not look quite right on uncalibrated screens)
Would need some more work to get a print that does it justice.
Hey Matt
Really like the image. I couldn't find a crop that improved it for me (left hand side makes it really hard) and I think it works well as is.
... Though I like Dan Arkle's ethereal cropped version, nice.
Here's my quick straightforward 5 min B&W edit.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6c1vjj48n6xxd6z/DSCF0821.jpg
(may not look quite right on uncalibrated screens)
Would need some more work to get a print that does it justice.
Post edited at 09:42
In reply to Matt Amos:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdiin5avu373gmf/AADoa5rTfS1KCg09U50OEcbba
Did not crop, all adjustments are in the same folder. I usually don't add that much of clarity, but it looks like it worked for this photo.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdiin5avu373gmf/AADoa5rTfS1KCg09U50OEcbba
Did not crop, all adjustments are in the same folder. I usually don't add that much of clarity, but it looks like it worked for this photo.
In reply to Matt Amos:
FWIW, I think Blue Straggler's one is the one I'd go for, were it mine. His comments about it looking different once printed and hung on a wall echo my thoughts. It perhaps won't exactly mimic the appearance of the scene to you at the time, but as an image on the wall, it would be my choice. There's a danger the others might appear a bit faded or washed out.
FWIW, I think Blue Straggler's one is the one I'd go for, were it mine. His comments about it looking different once printed and hung on a wall echo my thoughts. It perhaps won't exactly mimic the appearance of the scene to you at the time, but as an image on the wall, it would be my choice. There's a danger the others might appear a bit faded or washed out.
In reply to Matt Amos: Here's mine, perhaps a little more subtle, just tweaked the exposure and clarity gradauated for the sky and the overall contrast of the whole picture. My aim was to contrast the blue sky in the distance with the gathering swirl above, to hint at stormy weather approaching. Also enhancing the contrast and clarity of the mountains in the distance to accentuate the feeling of a massive landscape, to try and draw the eyes in. But I tried to keep the alterations subtle so as to keep the mood of the original. There are quite a lot of haloes around the snow in the foreground but if it is a jpeg this may have happened in camera so I would be careful with any additional sharpening for print as it will only make it worse.
I prefer a squarer crop if it will be mounted and framed as I think it lends itself more towards your eyes being drawn into the scene.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/20f1j3nv44x3c7u/untitled.jpg
I like ChrisJD's monochrome version.
BTW I can't see a blue cast on the original with how my monitor is calibrated. Whether the final print is seen in sunlight or indoor lighting can make a difference to whether they will be a colour cast when viewing the print. But I wouldn't worry about it a great deal.
I prefer a squarer crop if it will be mounted and framed as I think it lends itself more towards your eyes being drawn into the scene.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/20f1j3nv44x3c7u/untitled.jpg
I like ChrisJD's monochrome version.
BTW I can't see a blue cast on the original with how my monitor is calibrated. Whether the final print is seen in sunlight or indoor lighting can make a difference to whether they will be a colour cast when viewing the print. But I wouldn't worry about it a great deal.
In reply to Matt Amos:
I've gone for the 1990's era Athena Poster style. Needs more wolf howling at the moon, though.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56277488/243300.jpg
I've gone for the 1990's era Athena Poster style. Needs more wolf howling at the moon, though.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56277488/243300.jpg
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I doubt this version would print well due to banding and blown whites. Looks fine on screen but….
I doubt this version would print well due to banding and blown whites. Looks fine on screen but….
In reply to Escher:
" BTW I can't see a blue cast on the original with how my monitor is calibrated. "
There's definitely a blue cast, but it looks about right to my eye for a slightly overcast snow scene.
" BTW I can't see a blue cast on the original with how my monitor is calibrated. "
There's definitely a blue cast, but it looks about right to my eye for a slightly overcast snow scene.
In reply to eduardo:
Yes, that's what I meant really. Removing it almost immediately introduces an orange cast IMO, so I think it is nicely balanced between them for a overcast snow scene as you say.
Yes, that's what I meant really. Removing it almost immediately introduces an orange cast IMO, so I think it is nicely balanced between them for a overcast snow scene as you say.
In reply to Matt Amos:
Looking at the blacks, in your horizontal version of the same scene, the upright version just looks a bit 'flatter'.
I reckon the picture just need a simple levels, and contrast tweak?
Looking at the blacks, in your horizontal version of the same scene, the upright version just looks a bit 'flatter'.
I reckon the picture just need a simple levels, and contrast tweak?
In reply to Matt Amos:
Can I have a go?
Here's my attempt at two versions
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/14614551160/in/photostream
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/14798236481/
Can I have a go?
Here's my attempt at two versions
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/14614551160/in/photostream
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/14798236481/
Post edited at 13:22
In reply to Escher:
I like the square crop - but still a bit empty/unbalanced bottom left quadrant - it's tough!
I like the square crop - but still a bit empty/unbalanced bottom left quadrant - it's tough!
In reply to Stevie989:
Yeah I got lazy with that cloud. I only spent a couple of minutes and didn't even make any selections, just global changes. One problem is there is an area of snow that is just burned out in the original and nothing much can be done with it. It's not that big a deal as it doesn't weaken the picture overall.
Banding? You mean the wispy horizontal clouds?
I've not got much experience printing. Could these cause aliasing?
Yeah I got lazy with that cloud. I only spent a couple of minutes and didn't even make any selections, just global changes. One problem is there is an area of snow that is just burned out in the original and nothing much can be done with it. It's not that big a deal as it doesn't weaken the picture overall.
Banding? You mean the wispy horizontal clouds?
I've not got much experience printing. Could these cause aliasing?
In reply to Matt Amos:
I thought I'd have a quick play too:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16443210/DSCF0821a.jpg
I thought I'd have a quick play too:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16443210/DSCF0821a.jpg
In reply to Matt Amos:
Here's a bit more of a radical crop and more aggressive B&W conversion:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg
Here's a bit more of a radical crop and more aggressive B&W conversion:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg
In reply to Matt Amos:
Here's my "Lord of the Rings Poster" version.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56277488/243300_2.jpg
Here's my "Lord of the Rings Poster" version.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56277488/243300_2.jpg
In reply to planetmarshall:
Wow, your editing skills are good. I'm really impressed how you managed to pull those birds out and highlight them so well from the clouds.
> Here's my "Lord of the Rings Poster" version.
Wow, your editing skills are good. I'm really impressed how you managed to pull those birds out and highlight them so well from the clouds.
In reply to The Lemming:
Was going to add Hobbits and a black tower but I do actually have a day job...
> Wow, your editing skills are good. I'm really impressed how you managed to pull those birds out and highlight them so well from the clouds.
>
Was going to add Hobbits and a black tower but I do actually have a day job...
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Banding would be when the printer used cannot make the smooth gradients from light to dark (much like a crappy laptop screen) so you get quite definitive 'stops' from light to dark. A file that has been pushed hard in Post will be liable to this. I used to be quite bad for it in my studio work.
Banding would be when the printer used cannot make the smooth gradients from light to dark (much like a crappy laptop screen) so you get quite definitive 'stops' from light to dark. A file that has been pushed hard in Post will be liable to this. I used to be quite bad for it in my studio work.
In reply to Matt Amos:
At the risk of being controversial can I offer an opinion that reflects the approach of the early landscape photographers - specifically Ansel Adams. The aim should be to create an image that best depicts the one that you 'saw' at the time.
This is not to say it must be a sterile exact version but more an attempt to capture the atmosphere & feeling that was invoked by the scene. If you saw dramatic clouds then you must do your best to communicate that feeling to the viewer.
The great film photographers agonised over the technicality of doing this with the tools that they had at the time - chemical development & printing - which was quite crude - but we are not so limited.
Digital photography has opened up a huge range of tools & techniques to allow us to manipulate an image and this can be great fun and very creative but if done without pre-visualisation then it is digital photo art rather than pure landscape photography.
I feely admit to getting great satisfaction out of rediscovering new interpretations of digital images after the event but I get most satisfaction out of creating exactly the effect that I pre-visualised at the time by the myriad of editting tools we have available in Photoshop type software.
PS I played with your image and had great fun with it but I didn't see the scene so I can't really comment on whether I have improved it. It is very similar to DanArkle's version. One comment I would make is that both sky & mountain are equally powerful so I went for a crop that equalised them - thus breaking the 'rule' of thirds. You have to know the rules to break them!
Keeping taking the pictures Cheers Ratty
At the risk of being controversial can I offer an opinion that reflects the approach of the early landscape photographers - specifically Ansel Adams. The aim should be to create an image that best depicts the one that you 'saw' at the time.
This is not to say it must be a sterile exact version but more an attempt to capture the atmosphere & feeling that was invoked by the scene. If you saw dramatic clouds then you must do your best to communicate that feeling to the viewer.
The great film photographers agonised over the technicality of doing this with the tools that they had at the time - chemical development & printing - which was quite crude - but we are not so limited.
Digital photography has opened up a huge range of tools & techniques to allow us to manipulate an image and this can be great fun and very creative but if done without pre-visualisation then it is digital photo art rather than pure landscape photography.
I feely admit to getting great satisfaction out of rediscovering new interpretations of digital images after the event but I get most satisfaction out of creating exactly the effect that I pre-visualised at the time by the myriad of editting tools we have available in Photoshop type software.
PS I played with your image and had great fun with it but I didn't see the scene so I can't really comment on whether I have improved it. It is very similar to DanArkle's version. One comment I would make is that both sky & mountain are equally powerful so I went for a crop that equalised them - thus breaking the 'rule' of thirds. You have to know the rules to break them!
Keeping taking the pictures Cheers Ratty
In reply to Matt Amos:
My version hasn't got through the image Nazi's here.
I'll stick it up on Picassa later today, it's no different to many that have already been done, less good than most too.
My version hasn't got through the image Nazi's here.
I'll stick it up on Picassa later today, it's no different to many that have already been done, less good than most too.
In reply to Matt Amos:
Ok, my stab at it.
Not too different to others here, unsurprisingly.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YYzlFpIOpiQ/U9yh3bBIEpI/AAAAAAAADcc/Cb6X...
Ok, my stab at it.
Not too different to others here, unsurprisingly.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YYzlFpIOpiQ/U9yh3bBIEpI/AAAAAAAADcc/Cb6X...
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
"Digital photography has opened up a huge range of tools & techniques to allow us to manipulate an image and this can be great fun and very creative but if done without pre-visualisation then it is digital photo art rather than pure landscape photography."
Enormously debatable, and especially so in the context of Ansel Adams.
I'd be interested to know if you'd be happy to dismiss the vast majority of his best know work as "darkroom photo art" rather than "pure landscape photography".
He was hardly an early landscape photographer, btw, it's not as though he was working in the 1840s and 1850s.
"Digital photography has opened up a huge range of tools & techniques to allow us to manipulate an image and this can be great fun and very creative but if done without pre-visualisation then it is digital photo art rather than pure landscape photography."
Enormously debatable, and especially so in the context of Ansel Adams.
I'd be interested to know if you'd be happy to dismiss the vast majority of his best know work as "darkroom photo art" rather than "pure landscape photography".
He was hardly an early landscape photographer, btw, it's not as though he was working in the 1840s and 1850s.
Post edited at 16:14
In reply to eduardo:
It is, I could make it less so, but then it would be indistinctive.
It is, I could make it less so, but then it would be indistinctive.
Post edited at 22:51
In reply to eduardo:
Here you go;
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DxHfVVxjSZY/U91dX1EklyI/AAAAAAAADdE/kaKQ...
Here you go;
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DxHfVVxjSZY/U91dX1EklyI/AAAAAAAADdE/kaKQ...
Fantastic. Probably closest to how the op remembers it.
Wow everyone! Sorry for the no replies, I've been away for a while. Some of the edits are stunning! I love eduardo's monochrome one http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243557
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdiin5avu373gmf/AADoa5rTfS1KCg09U50OEcbba#lh:nul... I like how this is very similar but tweaked.
And chrisJD (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg) that's excellent.
Well cheers guys, that's the best response I've had from these forums. I do think the square crop is the best for the wall, and I like how the black and white makes it seem a bit more dark and ominous. But when it's in blue and colour it seems all happy and bright again.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdiin5avu373gmf/AADoa5rTfS1KCg09U50OEcbba#lh:nul... I like how this is very similar but tweaked.
And chrisJD (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg) that's excellent.
Well cheers guys, that's the best response I've had from these forums. I do think the square crop is the best for the wall, and I like how the black and white makes it seem a bit more dark and ominous. But when it's in blue and colour it seems all happy and bright again.
In reply to Matt Amos:
That's my go at it, I think?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243572
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdiin5avu373gmf/AADoa5rTfS1KCg09U50OEcbba#lh:nul... I like how this is very similar but tweaked.
That's my go at it, I think?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=243572
In reply to Matt Amos:
This link works:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg
Cheers - glad you liked it. I think this tall crop would also work with other peoples renditions as well.
Square is good as well.
Yes it is great how colour is happy and BW is moody.
This link works:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xle21sdc48mpp52/DSCF0821-2.jpg
Cheers - glad you liked it. I think this tall crop would also work with other peoples renditions as well.
Square is good as well.
Yes it is great how colour is happy and BW is moody.
In reply to Matt Amos:
FWIW, I prefer Dan Arkle's crop and it's what I was going to suggest when I first saw your image: the lines are much cleaner and it brings out the contrast between the muscular rhythms of the snow and rock and the softer rhythms of the cloud. The messy snow in the foreground detracts attention from those features. And the crop also makes the cloud on the lower left do more work and stops it being a smudge.
FWIW, I prefer Dan Arkle's crop and it's what I was going to suggest when I first saw your image: the lines are much cleaner and it brings out the contrast between the muscular rhythms of the snow and rock and the softer rhythms of the cloud. The messy snow in the foreground detracts attention from those features. And the crop also makes the cloud on the lower left do more work and stops it being a smudge.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...