Mountain track, flat sky for PP: As shot, the sky's a bit flat. However, there is cloud detail in there to be brought out. Or perhaps you think a new sky is called for. Feel free to...

R.G. Loc: Scotland

As shot, the sky's a bit flat. However, there is cloud detail in there to be brought out. Or perhaps you think a new sky is called for. Feel free to edit this in whatever way you think works best.

I'll post a link to a DNG under the JPG.

-

JPG.

(Download)

Link to DNG file.
Attached file:
(Download)

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

Here's a quick edit of the jpg version -

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

R.G. wrote:

As shot, the sky's a bit flat. However, there is cloud detail in there to be brought out. Or perhaps you think a new sky is called for. Feel free to edit this in whatever way you think works best.

I'll post a link to a DNG under the JPG.

-

Without cutting anything out, and working with the existing sky, a little graduated filter to reduce exposure in the clouds and add some structure in Lightroom.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Shellback wrote:

Here's a quick edit of the jpg version -

Nice sky, Shellback.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Dngallagher wrote:

Without cutting anything out, and working with the existing sky, a little graduated filter to reduce exposure in the clouds and add some structure in Lightroom.

I see you found some details and colour in the clouds, Don. And a bit of de-haze?

(I'd call you DNG, but that would just get plain confusing :-) ).

Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

R.G. wrote:

As shot, the sky's a bit flat. However, there is cloud detail in there to be brought out. Or perhaps you think a new sky is called for. Feel free to edit this in whatever way you think works best.

I'll post a link to a DNG under the JPG.

-

I sharpened and remove some haze in the mountains, but I think I did it with a price. When doing this the mountains don't seem to be in the distance as far as it looked in the original. I guess I am trying to say in the original picture they look about 15 to 20 miles away. In my final pp they look 5-10 miles away. Does anyone else get this feeling?
Back to what I did.
Opened DNG file reduced highlights all the way, opened shadows just a bit, increased whites, increased blacks, added a small bit of contrast.
Took this new adjusted photo to Aurora and made a one picture HDR. Used a Landscape filter.
Saved brought back to PS added more contrast to sky and mountains. Made mask let 50% of the HDR in bottom of picture to edge of distant mountains, 100% above that.
Imported original DNG again and applied it on top layer and brought in 30% of the original road to take glair out of rocks that HDR had added using a mask. Flattened and saved JPG.
Hope some of this makes since.

Scene

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Jim-Pops wrote:

......Hope some of this makes since.

Great job on the sky, Jim-Pops. I think the haze creates an impression of distance because it's what we're used to seeing. The up-side is that the detail behind the haze can be seen more clearly.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

R.G. wrote:

I see you found some details and colour in the clouds, Don. And a bit of de-haze?

(I'd call you DNG, but that would just get plain confusing :-) ).

Yes, just a smidge ;)

angela k Loc: Long Island

R.G., here's my try with your beautiful capture!
I adjusted color in PSE13 and added a painted sky, used Topaz Adjust and some Simplify.

(Download)

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

In case you missed it I replaced the sky. All done on PS. One wonders what the great folks on the Hog did before that nice Mr Adobe gave em
De Haze? Seems lately if its got pixels it must need De Haze lol
Distant mountains have haze built in, its natural so personally would not do a anything other than emphasize detail if your going for a natural look.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

angela k wrote:

R.G., here's my try with your beautiful capture!
I adjusted color in PSE13 and added a painted sky, used Topaz Adjust and some Simplify.

Thank you Angela. No problems with depth here. And the sky's very effective and appropriate for the scene.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Billyspad wrote:

In case you missed it I replaced the sky. All done on PS. One wonders what the great folks on the Hog did before that nice Mr Adobe gave em
De Haze? Seems lately if its got pixels it must need De Haze lol
Distant mountains have haze built in, its natural so personally would not do a anything other than emphasize detail if your going for a natural look.

Thanks for contributing, Billy. I'd agree with what you're saying about removing haze altogether, but one thing haze does is leave things a bit on the bright side, and I'd say your edit would benefit from having the mountains darkened a smidge. Knock-out sky, though :thumbup: .

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

Billyspad wrote:

In case you missed it I replaced the sky. All done on PS. One wonders what the great folks on the Hog did before that nice Mr Adobe gave em
De Haze? Seems lately if its got pixels it must need De Haze lol
Distant mountains have haze built in, its natural so personally would not do a anything other than emphasize detail if your going for a natural look.

This is a lovely version of R.G.'s photo! The sky is especially nice.. And, I agree about the haze.

angela k Loc: Long Island

R.G. wrote:

Thank you Angela. No problems with depth here. And the sky's very effective and appropriate for the scene.

Thanks R.G. I always have fun playing with others!!
:-D

SoHillGuy Loc: Washington

I don't think I missed any pixels that I didn't adjust with some tool or brush. I also used plug in's, Topaz, and PE 8.

(Download)