Preseli (sorry, I'm back again)

[Davejl]

I am quite excited because I have just had a play with this image in Photomatix. I often use this software to merge 3 different exposures of a photo. However, with the present image, I tried something I've not done before, and merged 2 of the shots from my previous post, but they are both simply WB and colour tweaks of the same exposure. I like the result, which seems to me to have added punch and clarity whilst still remaining faithful to what I want the shot to say.

[bnnrcn]

It looks nice. IMO you could have achieved the same look by editing only one image though

[Davejl]

Hi Binnur,

I'm sure you're right, but it was very easy doing it in Photomatix and the thing that surprised me was that it could be done at all. I'd just thought of it as a way of combining different exposures. I think that working on one of the files alone would probably have required a lot more tweaking. Here I did two versions in Photomatix, a richer one for the foreground, with a fair bit of local contrast, and then a slightly less contrasty one, with zero local contast, and combined the two using the latter for distant stuff and sky.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Photomatix is HDR software and the results you see come from a process known as "tone mapping", where one or more images have new values assigned to colours. I personally don't like these automated processes because they tend to be difficult to control.

My preferred method is to stack multiple exposures in Photoshop and then manually blend them.

On the other hand, if you are happy with the results, who are we to argue with you?

[Shadowman]

As you are happy with the results, mission accomplished, nice effort.

[Davejl]

Normally I use Photomatix for photos of church interiors. Almost invariably I use the "natural" preset, but then tweak it. I don't tend to use any of the others, since I find most look highly artificial.

For most landscapes, unless the result is good straight off, I tend to process the raw file at least twice, once for the land, and another for the sky, then combine the two manually in PS. I actally did that sort of combining in the image here, where I made two Photomatix conversions, one with zero local contrast in the sky version, to keep the blue smooth, the other with quite a of local contrast and higher saturation for the foreground.

What I was hoping for when I posted this shot, was for someone to tell me whether the image looked OTT, garish, totally unrealistic or any better than or less satisfactory than my previous efforts, in their opinion. I appreciate that ultimately I can disagree with anyone else's assessment of my pictures if I choose to, but I really would like to hear other opinions. For example, one response to my earlier post of the same scene has now made me look anew at and warm to the slighly pinker sky version, which I incorporated here.

[Manfred M]

Dave - While I like this version better than the ones you posted the other day, I will still stick to some of the comments I made originally. From a composition standpoint, the first thing we notice is the big backlit rock. Big backlit subjects don't tend to work that well compositionally, so I think you need to coax it out a bit, and then brighten up some of the other shaded areas just to keep the light in proportion. I do like that you brought more detail out in the sky, and like you I tend to treat my skies separately from the rest of the image.

On my screen, the image looks a tad light and has a magenta / red colour cast. As my screen is calibrated and profiled, I trust what I see. So I removed the cast, darkened the image a tiny bit and dodged the rock and shaded areas. Pretty straight forward Photoshop stuff (no fancy filters this time).



To compare the two edits, click on the image to open it in Lightbox and press the arrow keys to toggle between the two versions.

[Davejl]

Manfred,

Thanks for this.
I like your version. Your point about the backlight on the rock I agree with. I wanted to get the distant misty land in the shot. Viewed from the sunlit side of the rock, the ground plunges away towards the sea, which was shrouded in gloomy mist, so there was no interesting background. Unfortunately, the view in my shot is from north-east, which never gets sunlight at the time of year I was here, but I like the way you have managed to lighten it. The magenta cast you mention is actually that bizarre magenta bias of the Silkypix default setting, which was not as pronounced in this shot as in some others. In some it is pretty bad.

When you say that you dodged the rock, is that the only manoeuvre you used for lightening, and if so, what percentage setting? I will experiment more with dodging. I one version I did of this, I tried selecting the rock then using Shadows/Highlights to lighten a small amount (if I use this, I always seem to need to reduce considerably the default value that the programme applies).
Thanks for the processing. This is certainly closer to the colour I envisage than your version in my other post, but more dynamic than my versions.

As for using Photomatix, I've experimented a bit more and decided I'll go back to using it just for combining exposure bracketed shots!

Cheers,

Dave

[Manfred M]

I don't use either the dodge or burn tools in Photoshop; I find that they are fairly useless as they just seem to add neutral gray to the image. I use blending modes (screen) and a layer mask and use an opaque (black) mask to hide everything. I then you a super soft brush with Opacity 100% and Flow 10% to paint in the "dodge". Once it is as light as I can make it I duplicate the layer as many times are required (3 times in this case) to lighten up the shadow detail of the rock.

This is what the Photoshop layers I used look like.

[Davejl]

Thank you Manfred.

I really must try to get to grips with masking, it is something I've read about often enough. When I blend the sky from one conversion with the ground from another, I tend to copy and paste the "ground" version onto the sky version then quick select the sky, feather the selection, and then erase, usually at less than 100 per cent.

I have sometimes used "screen" blending mode to lighten. What I am quite partial to is selecting some foreground and making a "soft light" layer of that, of just a few per cent, to boost contrast and colour (which I presume is not so different to using a simple curve, but just seems quicker and easier to me).

But to do what you can do, with precision, I can see that I certainly need to bite the bullet and get familiar with layer masking, which has always scared me a bit!

Dave

[Brev00]

I like to do single image HDR's in Nik HDR Efex Pro by altering brightness in three versions like a real bracketed set and I have combined finished images as well as you have done here. It is all good fun and can get me where I want to go. But, for me, there is one thing I need to be aware of: Nik will throw my saturation into orbit if I am not careful. I find it can take quite a bit of adjusting to get the benefits of the program while reining in the colors. I usually want some added pizzazz but overkill is just too easy. So, here, I feel like you have a very high amount of saturation for each and every color. To my eye, the darker reds which dominate the foreground look good. But all the other colors are fighting for attention including the blue of the sky, the neon green in the middle, the lighter pastures on the far right, and the purplish rock on the near left. HDR and restraint do not go hand in hand but toning down many of the colors is where I would start. Which might push you back to your earlier renditions or, perhaps, using an initial, less edited version for your Photomatix production.

[Manfred M]

Thank you Manfred.

I really must try to get to grips with masking, it is something I've read about often enough. When I blend the sky from one conversion with the ground from another, I tend to copy and paste the "ground" version onto the sky version then quick select the sky, feather the selection, and then erase, usually at less than 100 per cent.

I have sometimes used "screen" blending mode to lighten. What I am quite partial to is selecting some foreground and making a "soft light" layer of that, of just a few per cent, to boost contrast and colour (which I presume is not so different to using a simple curve, but just seems quicker and easier to me).

But to do what you can do, with precision, I can see that I certainly need to bite the bullet and get familiar with layer masking, which has always scared me a bit!

Dave

All I can say is that you are doing things the hard way. Once you have figured out masks you'll wonder why you didn't use them earlier (I know that from personal experience!). The method you use is risky. Make a mistake and you have to step all the way back in your history to correct it and then rebuild all the steps along the way. With a layer mask, if you make a mistake, all you do is change the colour you are painting with and fix the issue and then keep on going.

[Brev00]

I find it is important to ask myself some questions when I am working hard on an image. One, is it worth it? Maybe the original file just did not capture the original scene very well and all efforts to resuscitate it are not going to work. Two, am I trying to work toward what I saw at the time of capture or am I creating something totally new? Something totally new is fine. I do it all the time. But, usually after making a more natural rendition first. For me, creating a natural version is the higher priority. Three, if a color image is not working, why fight it? Maybe black and white will do the scene justice. A black and white will usually reveal the bare bones of an image very well. The patterns, lines, shapes all emerge from the color's shadow. But, black and white can be an acquired taste. Anyway, too much effort and struggle is a sign. Somewhere, I lost the flow. I stopped listening to the image. Time to either start fresh or pause and revisit the image another day. Sleep on it. And good night.

[Davejl]

Thanks Manfred, I really will try to master masking since it sounds like editing would become a whole lot easier and quicker! I hadn't realised that it was possible to correct a "mismask" by simply changing the paint colour.