Superstition: the only good light is at sunrise or sunset (Page 2): Exactly what tweaks do you think are needed and in which picture(s)? I am not saying this to be obnoxious, but I...

PeterBergh

canadaboy wrote:

... For me they are in need of some quite minor tweaks in PP to bring out the best in them and add the interest that's obviously there.

Exactly what tweaks do you think are needed and in which picture(s)? I am not saying this to be obnoxious, but I would like to know.

PeterBergh

RichardTaylor wrote:

Very nice.

thanks

canadaboy

PeterBergh wrote:

Exactly what tweaks do you think are needed and in which picture(s)? I am not saying this to be obnoxious, but I would like to know.

Hello Peter I added a contrast adjustment layer then a Curves adjustment of a gentle S shape then a Soft Light blend mode at 50% opacity. I will post my result if you wish.
This is all down to personal taste but my version of your excellent shot I would be happy to hang on my wall.

PeterBergh

canadaboy wrote:

Hello Peter I added a contrast adjustment layer then a Curves adjustment of a gentle S shape then a Soft Light blend mode at 50% opacity. I will post my result if you wish.
This is all down to personal taste but my version of your excellent shot I would be happy to hang on my wall.

I am very happy you liked it. Please post. I am not yet comfortable enough with Photoshop to understand exactly what you did, but I got the general idea: you boosted contrast a bit and then boosted a bit in the midtones. Correct?

canadaboy

PeterBergh wrote:

I am very happy you liked it. Please post. I am not yet comfortable enough with Photoshop to understand exactly what you did, but I got the general idea: you boosted contrast a bit and then boosted a bit in the midtones. Correct?

If you think its an improvement I'll take you through it step by step. The changes are subtle so you may need to open both images in PS and go Window>Arrange>2 Up Horizontal to display them side by side. My version is resized to 1500 x 1000 pixels and you will need to resize yours to the same to view in this way.

(Download)

canadaboy

canadaboy wrote:

If you think its an improvement I'll take you through it step by step. The changes are subtle so you may need to open both images in PS and go Window>Arrange>2 Up Horizontal to display them side by side. My version is resized to 1500 x 1000 pixels and you will need to resize yours to the same to view in this way.

Screen shot from my PC

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Linda From Maine wrote:

#2 is an engaging composition with interesting per... (show quote)

#1 pic - I looked and pondered - then searched in SmartEdit at the dozens of alternative lighting and colour situations. I came to the conclusion that the OP's
picture, with subdued colors, soft light and vertical format is exactly right. In fact, IMHO, it deserves congratulations.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Both photos look as thought they are the result of HDR? The first also looks as if it has been sharpened a great deal, but could be something else. Up close, its more interesting than the whole. IMO. The second shot is a very cool composition. I feel it would benefit from a nudge to the darker with a decrease in saturation.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

canadaboy wrote:

Hello Peter I added a contrast adjustment layer then a Curves adjustment of a gentle S shape then a Soft Light blend mode at 50% opacity. I will post my result if you wish.
This is all down to personal taste but my version of your excellent shot I would be happy to hang on my wall.

Can you post a screen shot of the histogram in order to compare with Ch_Canon's on page 1? I think it could be instructive to see if there is a difference between what you posted and what he suggested. As you said, small changes can be significant. There is an art to doing that while keeping with the OP's original vision - something I fail at regularly

Many thanks.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Linda From Maine wrote:

Can you post a screen shot of the histogram in order to compare with Ch_Canon's on page 1? I think it could be instructive to see if there is a difference between what you posted and what he suggested. As you said, small changes can be significant. There is an art to doing that while keeping with the OP's original vision - something I fail at regularly

Many thanks.

Hi All - I downloaded Superstition #1 and opened it in PhotoPlus X8 to see how the histogram would look - I'm a bit non-plussed - can anyone explain?

Attached file:
(Download)

PeterBergh

Delderby wrote:

#1 pic - I looked and pondered - then searched in SmartEdit at the dozens of alternative lighting and colour situations. I came to the conclusion that the OP's
picture, with subdued colors, soft light and vertical format is exactly right. In fact, IMHO, it deserves congratulations.

Thank you

PeterBergh

fergmark wrote:

Both photos look as thought they are the result of HDR? The first also looks as if it has been sharpened a great deal, but could be something else. Up close, its more interesting than the whole. IMO. The second shot is a very cool composition. I feel it would benefit from a nudge to the darker with a decrease in saturation.

The saturation in the second shot has not been changed from the way it came from the camera; the saturation was present in the scene.

Regarding HDR: I probably used HDR. To me, what matters is the picture, not the steps used to get there.

I am, however, very glad you felt they were worthy of comment.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Delderby wrote:

Hi All - I downloaded Superstition #1 and opened it in PhotoPlus X8 to see how the histogram would look - I'm a bit non-plussed - can anyone explain?

Almost now answered my own question - but in manipulating the curves have been unable to reproduce the histogram on page 1. I am wondering whether that histogram is of the download or the thumbnail? or should there be no difference?

PeterBergh

canadaboy wrote:

Screen shot from my PC

Thanks much for your edits -- much appreciated. The main difference I see (in the downloaded screen shot) between the two pictures is that yours is more saturated. To my eyes, your version is a trifle too saturated and mine may well be a bit under-saturated. I will play around with saturation and vibrance in Lightroom and see if I like a more saturated version. (Since you used PS and I am a total duffer at PS, I need to learn more about PS before I can benefit from your expertise.) If I like a more saturated version (probably somewhere between yours and mine), I will post the result.

bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

I think you have proven the opposite of the point you wanted to prove.