New version of #1 from the original post in this topic. Many thanks are due to CanadaBoy who pointed out a possible edit.
PeterBergh wrote:
New version of #1 from the original post in this topic. Many thanks are due to CanadaBoy who pointed out a possible edit.
In what way is this different from Ch_Canon's suggestion? I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
Linda From Maine wrote:
In what way is this different from Ch_Canon's suggestion? I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
I think the subtleties as displayed are something to do with splitting hairs.
Linda From Maine wrote:
In what way is this different from Ch_Canon's suggestion? I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
CH_CANON suggested changing the black and white points and the exposure; I had already gone as far as I want along the black-and-white-points route and I think the exposure is fine as it is. CanadaBoy suggested boosting contrast. Using LR, I boosted Contrast a bit, Vibrance a bit, and Saturation by very little.
I'm viewing this on a laptop. One of the "fun" things (sometimes!) about a laptop is that the density of the monitor varies with the degree of tilt. I've been told that a straight 90 degree (monitor straight up and down) is the "correct" density or true density. So I looked at these full screen and tilted the screen back. It went back almost 45 degrees to get the density I like. But there was lots of colour and detail there, once correct (?) density was achieved. And perhaps no GND filter application would be necessary in the first one if one darkened the sky a tad. When I shoot at noon, it's the sky colour that I work on most, as I like our deep blue western skies.
Yes, shadows are missing a bit. But if you deepen the blacks, sometimes you can give the appearance of having shadows.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.