Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Landscapes, Architecture, and Cityscapes' started by cwilt, Dec 14, 2005.
#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
Very nice photo Charles! I'd also be interested in your processing technique. Too bad they strip mined the &^$% out of that mountain and left it looking like it's taken a bad shave though.
Paul, I have a bunch of glass filters too. Some of them are useful on digital, but the more saturated ones cause problems with acuity. I guess it's because they cause some of the bayer filtered pixels to go black.
For an "attempt" it looks pretty great to me! What exactly has been done to the mountains to make them steps, or is it natural?
I like the composition. The B/W conversion seems a little flat to me though. I think I'd like to see the highlights in the clouds be a little brighter.
I have been trying to replicate the same steps that one would use in a darkroom for B&W. Many layers with different contrasts and masks. A little dodging here, and a little burning there. It just so happens I have been playing with glass filters lately, but not with this image. Sorry to disapoint you.
I not sure what they were mining there. Maybe I will do some research to add history to the image.
I had to pull the highlights back and may have over done it. Thanks.
Filters, in front of the lens, what an interesting concept.....
I've actually just shelled out on a Cokin P set - mostly for ND work. But, yeah, don't use filters as much as I used to.
Fine image as well - the steps remind me of Paddy fields - looks like the wrong neck of the woods for growing rice though.
Very sorry for the delay. I have been trying to reply all day but work keeps pulling me away.
Normally I would use RML to process the colour version and import to PS CS. Since I had just updated Nikon Capture and there is a new B&W colour mode in the advanced RAW settings, it seemed like something I should try. So the B&W conversion was done in NC and then opened in PS CS.
It was a very flat image to begin with, which is typical of standard conversions. In this image I saw 3 zones which were the sky, mountains, and the hillside in front. Each zone got its own processing. I will use the clouds as an example.
For the clouds I made a duplicate layer. Used the select color range set to highlights to create a mask. Opened the curve tool then [ctrl] clicked points of lightest and darkest. Adjusted these points to give contrast in the clouds. Did some fine tuning with black/white brush on the mask and flattened.
I used the same technique for the mountains and hillside. Mid tone mask was used for mountains and shadows for the hillside. Each done on a separate layer and flattened before the next was applied. Much like additive and subtractive printing in a darkroom. I have only read about this, but it sounded like a good idea. Each zone got its own contrast and burn time.
There was some dodging and burning done to bring out certain elements along the way and I can’t remember where and how much right now. Then I used levels to change overall contrast and hopefully add some sparkle to it. Like using a mild farmer’s solution.
Resized and sharpened for the web.
Please don’t forgive the “jab” that takes all of the fun out of it.:wink:
There is no artistic ability needed for that.It is just a matter of vision. See it and make it so, to be simplistic.
I agree, you are different.:tongue:
I don't really appreciate B/W like I should. I really do't care for it. grrrr
I do have a few Ansel Adams books and trying to understand light and shadows better.
So I can not critique at all. Also I am not sure I trust my monitor.
I will say that is quite a dramatic image. I like many aspects of the image. Clouds, mountains, shapes, light and composition. Great image.
Charles, I like to see a little more contrast in my B&W images but then this is just a personal preferance. I gave it a quick process in PS CS using an orange filter and then a little more contrast. See what you think.
That looks great! A lot more pop to it. The original image is, of course, fine and dandy as well.
Sorry Gordon, but in my opinion you have to much blow out in the clouds. Different strokes, for different folks.:smile:
How about this. Quick levels adjustment (adjust shadow/highlight sliders until just a few pixels begin to click and adjust gamma slider to get midtones back where theyshould be), and then USM at 12, 60, 0.
I see what you mean Charles. Perhaps we can satisfy both with this rendition which leaves the clouds alone and uses same adjustmenst as my previous post:
Interesting ... this image does seem to tax the brightness range of the capture just barely. The processes that capture the most cloud detail look like they clip the dark trees just by a bit. And the ones that get the most detail in the trees clip into the brightest areas of the clouds.
Charles, just out of curiosity, does your image reach pure white anywhere, or did you leave some room at the ar right of the histogram?
There were 2 small spots in the clouds that were blown out. I was trying to balance detail of the pines in foreground with detail in the clouds. Tough to do when the wind is blowing so hard that it brings tears to your eyes. I shot this handheld while leaning on my truck and timing the rocking motion for the best shot.