AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Joe. I hear you on the side-by-side thing. So often I wish for that. #4 is the one with both processes done. I'm tending to favor that one also. But two processes means a LONG time to "develop" an image! And yes, contrast and sharpness are exactly what I'm looking for.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, RG. I do use clarity - sometimes too much. My standard LR setting is clarity/contrast/vibrance. I've learned that the detail extractor actually lessens contrast. One of the settings in it is contrast and another is saturation. If one doesn't use those, the image comes up very flat. Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Linda. I always appreciate your straight-forwardness! What I'm learning is that using Topaz Sharpen only doesn't make a huge difference until one zooms way in. That's why I was sort of disappointed in it at the outset. When I did the NIK application in #2, I actually did NOT apply it to the sky portion, because it tends to do strange things to skies. So the sky is pretty much natural. The clouds that day were very pretty, and since I'm not used to having clouds, I had a lot of fun using them. I wished for a polarizer, but couldn't find it. Depending on the direction I was shooting I got really dramatic skies (such as in the one I posted previously). This one was less dramatic, but still nice.

When I put an image up for sale, I always want to be able to say that if the viewer were standing in that spot, that's what s/he would see - in other words, a truthful image. I watch people as they walk through art shows and stop at various booths. I admit that the over-saturated look tends to get people to stop and look. But I can't say it makes them buy.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Val. That's encouraging.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Bill. I'm becoming a fan of Sharpen, and always in the stabilize mode. Since I find I'm getting a bit shaky, getting that extra bit of stabilization has saved some images that I thought were lost.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I thought I re-wrote one of my sentences because it was confusing. I either didn't save or didn't make it any less confusing - ha! I've rewritten now, so hopefully it gets my point across a little better.

Comparing #1 to #2 there is a subtle difference in the clouds, so perhaps part of the editing process not specifically Nik was the cause.

The way I compare images online is to open each in a different browser tab, then click between them. Obviously not as perfect as having them side by side on a single screen, but sometimes I'll notice something that I wouldn't have picked up when opening individually.

Thanks again!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

That's a good tip for comparing, Linda. I'll go back and look at the NIK one. It's highly possible that I missed a spot in my masking of the sky. I find that sort of hard to do.

Jim-Pops Loc: Granbury, Texas

Kathy, this was a good challenge just to give you an answer. I had to see them in a grouping to give you a fair and correct critique IMO. I did something that I would never do with a picture that has a copywriter logo on it but in this case you were looking for a fair assessment of the 4 pictures. As soon as I finish this response I will delete all your pictures from my computer.

I see that you have Lightroom. This function might be in all versions not sure. If you highlight the pictures you want to compare then type the letter n you will see all 4 pictures opened on one screen. Then if you hit the triangle on the left side you get more space and then do the same on the right triangle you get even more space. To quickly get out of this mode just hit esc key and the triangles again. So I opened your 4 picture in my Lightroom for this assessment.

IMO
#1 is your original.
#2 & 4 are very, very close to the same thing. Contrast is up toward the HDR look but only see it that way because I see the original at the same time. Color has shifted + yellow + more intense color/saturation too. Again I say that because I see the original to compare it to. Only you know what it looked like when you were there and if the camera was capturing it the way you remember it. Having said all that #3 & 4 might look just as I see it if you shot it a little later in the day. So in my conclusion is #3 is the best one, just a bit crisper with detail and color. Clouds look a smidgeon better. When I loaded them into Lightroom it also brought in your star rating and I see this probably was your favorite too.

Click, Click your photos are now removed form my computer.
Jim

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Hey, Jim, thanks! I never knew that about seeing comparable images all at once. That's a cool move that I'll try to remember. I tried it and it works! Thanks for that.

Thanks, too, for your comments on the images. I didn't realize that the yellow had changed. Actually, to be truthful to the scene, I probably need to tone it down a tad. I realized when I was there that later in the day would have been better. But when one is traveling, one takes what one gets. Unfortunately, there was no option for sticking around that many hours.

Waterfall9

I think R.G. nailed it. Differences are very subtle. The topaz image looks more natural and the Nik image simply has punched up the contrast which made me at first consider that the Nik sharpener did a better job. It might be better to use masks to selectively raise contrast and focus locally on the Topaz image.

Thanks for presenting the demonstration.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I guess No. 4 touches my reality. To me none of them look over cooked and I don't understand "harsh" so that doesn't effect me. I see nothing objectionable, and very little difference in 2,3 or 4.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I haven't figured out how to do that yet. I'm working on it.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks. If you can't see the differences, they must be subtle.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Are you accessing Topaz as a plug-in? If yes, from which software, LR? If yes, have you tried doing it via PS so that you can have the Topaz edit on a separate layer, and do masking on that?

Ourspolair

Wow - it certainly was an effort for my "visual memory"! In the end, I liked the way that using both processes brought out the detail in the extreme left of the image. The comments about being "overcooked might be addressed by reducing the vibrance a touch, but in terms of improving detail, I think that you have done a stellar job.
Stay well and keep up the good work.