Two versions done two different ways
Nov 4, 2022 17:00:00 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I'm not sure what you're referring to; the sky wou... (show quote)
I'm going to work on that and see what I come up with.
Nov 4, 2022 17:01:29 #
kpmac wrote:
I would like #2 with a less contrasty/banded sky. The rest of the image is quite nice.
Thanks, Ken.
Nov 5, 2022 06:00:37 #
The first one. It sort of lends itself to the openess / barrenness of the landscape. It also has a more natiral graduation in the sky.
Nov 5, 2022 07:34:01 #
I like #2 better as I think the added contrast work better with this image.
Nov 5, 2022 08:00:57 #
Have you come to any conclusions on whether to shoot in BW or convert in post ? I get diff. answers depending on who I ask. I really like Silver Efex and have been using it with good results. I have a Foveon based camera I want to play with in BW so I guess I have to get off my backside and take some test images using diff. conversions. I really need to get some insight from someone who is familiar with HOW the Foveon process BW... I think in your case # 2 is a tad too contrasty for MY taste but MY taste is really irrelevant as to YOUR taste. I will take my Merrill and do some side by side testing. My prob. is I tend to play TOO long and overprocess.
Nov 5, 2022 08:53:02 #
It’s pretty much a tossup, but if I had done it, it would come out like the second one. I suspect it's the Nic version. So, my winner is the second.
Nov 5, 2022 09:09:52 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
AzPicLady wrote:
I maybe should post this in the Post Processing section, but I'll put it here. I shot this in colour, but thought at the time it would make a really nice B&W. My automatic thing to do was to do it in LR. So I simply clicked on the B&W button in LR, then did a tiny bit of tweaking. Then, someone reminded me of Silver Eflex, so I tried doing it in that program. I'm curious which one y'all think is better (without my telling you which is which). I sure have a favorite.
I like the contrast in the second one - much more definition. However, the banding in the sky doesn’t reflect reality. If that sky transition was a smooth one the image would be a winner. I have no solutions for how to deal with t(at problem either.
Stan
Nov 5, 2022 09:48:11 #
mindzye
Loc: WV
Linda From Maine wrote:
I prefer #2 for the overall tonal range, but with ... (show quote)
Linda my preference is #2. While I agree the sky might be a 'bit' lighter it's ok as is. I really like the foreground in #2 as it has a good tonal quality w/ the shadows and lighter body qualities. To me the first is just a bit flat with you showing the differentiation in the second.
All that being said I really like the composition
Nov 5, 2022 09:50:39 #
John N wrote:
The first one. It sort of lends itself to the openess / barrenness of the landscape. It also has a more natiral graduation in the sky.
Thanks, John.
Nov 5, 2022 09:51:06 #
yssirk123 wrote:
I like #2 better as I think the added contrast work better with this image.
Thanks, Bill.
Nov 5, 2022 09:52:48 #
MrBob wrote:
...My prob. is I tend to play TOO long and overprocess.
That sounds like me! I've been playing with these two way too long.
Nov 5, 2022 09:54:40 #
jaymatt wrote:
It’s pretty much a tossup, but if I had done it, it would come out like the second one. I suspect it's the Nic version. So, my winner is the second.
And you would be so right. Frankly, I've been playing in Topaz so much, I forgot all about having Nik. So I did the first one in LR and the second in Silver Efex. I like the bottom of the second and the top of the first! So now what to do?
Nov 5, 2022 09:56:02 #
StanMac wrote:
I like the contrast in the second one - much more definition. However, the banding in the sky doesn’t reflect reality. If that sky transition was a smooth one the image would be a winner. I have no solutions for how to deal with t(at problem either.
Stan
Stan
Thanks, Stan. That's the issue. I don't know why the sky turned out that way.
Nov 5, 2022 09:57:25 #
mindzye wrote:
Linda my preference is #2. While I agree the sky might be a 'bit' lighter it's ok as is. I really like the foreground in #2 as it has a good tonal quality w/ the shadows and lighter body qualities. To me the first is just a bit flat with you showing the differentiation in the second.
All that being said I really like the composition
All that being said I really like the composition
Thanks, Mindzye. I totally agree with what you've said. If I were good at layering, I might try merging the two and get the sky from the first and the ground from the second. Not sure if I'm capable of doing that.
Nov 5, 2022 10:09:16 #
mindzye
Loc: WV
AzPicLady wrote:
Thanks, Mindzye. I totally agree with what you've said. If I were good at layering, I might try merging the two and get the sky from the first and the ground from the second. Not sure if I'm capable of doing that.
Yeah, I'm with you on the sky thing. One item I've been working on (successfully or not lately) is the little stick thingy with the dots around it - when dragged around a section it will highlight it and let you work on it separately.
Then I've tried brightness/contrast - erase- then try levels - erase - then shadows and brights - moderately - then curves or even luminance. Luminance? ummm, Luminosity.... sheesh
And then get the feeling of running around and yelling "The sky is failing - the Sky is failing" !
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.