Landscape Processing Opinion Please

[Stagecoach]

As some will know I have been working on landscapes and to put it simply what I have been producing has not been comparable to my expectations when viewing the scenes.

I have found that I've been putting a lot of time into PP work on the images but have to say this has been somewhat dis-jointed and the final images have led to me wondering if the results are part due to the camera and lens I'm using. Basically the images have not contained the contrast, clarity and sharpness I want although I'm not looking for the over-processed wow factor.

Last night I was reading a section of a book called 'Elements Maximum Performance' and came to the conclusion that I need to slow down and start to understand the adjustments and procedures I have been using because it soon became clear I did not even understand how the gradient tool and masks worked that I had been using and as for the magical luminosity layer, wow !

So true to form I could not wait to have a go with a new approach on the image below. It is not a very interesting picture but was chosen due to the almost level horizon (for pp ease) and that it had detail both near and far. I think this one has convinced me the problems are not due to equipment or procedure when taking the shot.

I would very much appreciate an opinion of the overall 'image quality' disregarding the fact that it's not too interesting but it's my intention with this project to emphasise the vegetation and skies although they are not going to be blue with fluffy white clouds.

1/60s, f18, 27mm (18-200), ISO200, tripod, timed release.


Grahame

[Shadowman]

Processing looks good to me. Foreground treatment provides significant depth into the image. Some landscape editing tutorials would suggest additional treatment to the horizon, however with the dramatic skies I don't think this image needs such an adjustment. Would be nice to see perhaps three or four examples of different post processing/different scenes.

[Polar01]

Grahame: I am a big dramatic skies kind of guy, to me that is where a lot of the time I want the eye to go to. I myself would work the sky a little differently but that is my reality not yours. One suggestion eyes go to light, where is that light taking you. Well it is taking me to the upper left hand corner and off the page. Maybe a darkening of the corners with that corner getting a bit more and larger area to help keep those eyes on the image.
Just a thought.

Cheers: Allan

[Stagecoach]

John,

Thank you for the comments. I'm not aware specific treatments for the horizon and am pleased you have mentioned this as it's something I will now look into and see if I can find some tutorials regarding landscapes.

I intend to take some time now looking at these alternative methods I have found, or should I say 'correct use of tools', make some notes and re-visit the PP for a few recent shots.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Alan,

Skies are an area that will feature in this project and have been a bit of a problem due to them being generally heavy cloud so I have to learn pull out what I can without overdoing it which in this case I hope I achieved far more easily than in my previous attempts.

I never consider where the eyes are led to with respect to the light when processing an image but must address this, I think a check-list is needed

Grahame

[Geoff F]

Possibly a slight crop from the top and left side would create a more dramatic scene?

[FrankMi]

Hi Grahame, if I might offer an observation or two? Most of the interest is in the drama being played out in the sky and that looks great in this rendition.

The foreground has both different coloring than the middle ground and an uneven upper border to help keep it interesting but nothing that really stands out in the way of pattern or texture other than that so it has limited appeal. That leaves the middle ground.

With the exception of the hint of a tree on the right, the pattern of color, texture, contrast, brightness and element size is almost identical across the entire area which is accentuated only by a red dot here and there. Unlike the sky, there isn't much for the eye to be drawn to so one's eye will likely return back to the drama in the sky. I don't think that there is much you can do with in post processing to the expanse of the middle ground that would dramatically improve the image.

I have been very frustrated in the past while trying to learn post processing with compositions like this for that very reason. Learning post processing is far more rewarding when you invest a little more into the initial composition. For example, in your mind's eye move the foreground up (a lower camera angle) until about 1/3rd of the middle ground remains and see how that might appeal? This same problem crops up repeatedly when we take broad vistas from mountain overlooks. Our eye sees the grandeur but the sameness in the captured image doesn't translate what we saw very well.

I hope I'm not being too negative but learning effective post processing needs an interesting composition to produce the reasonably satisfying results that you can be proud of.

[Stagecoach]

Geoff,

I have not cropped this image because my interest was more to do with the overall processing of the elements within it consisting of foreground, mid area, horizon and sky. Cropping a fair bit from the top removes much of the light area without loosing too much of the dramatic affect.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Frank,

Thank you for your assessment of the image and I agree with all you have said and certainly do not consider it negative.

I have a number of more interesting images taken recently but having processed them I have considered them lacking not due to subject but how they look when finished.

Many of the images I will take will have large areas of rainforest as per the middle ground here so I wonder if there is a way that I can make this vegetation have more impact?

My next goal is to learn how to mask effectively so that I can more selectively work on certain areas of the images hence my reasoning here for picking an easy one with a level horizon.

Grahame

[Downrigger]

Learning post processing is far more rewarding when you invest a little more into the initial composition. For example, in your mind's eye move the foreground up (a lower camera angle) until about 1/3rd of the middle ground remains and see how that might appeal? This same problem crops up repeatedly when we take broad vistas from mountain overlooks. Our eye sees the grandeur but the sameness in the captured image doesn't translate what we saw very well.

Awfully well said, and very applicable to my current (developmentally early) efforts. I had to hear it several times before I took it to heart. I find it very much more complex and challenging to shoot landscapes now that I have this in mind, and I take many fewer shots.

[AB26]

Grahame,
In my opinion I think you did very little PP. It seems very realistic with real world colours.
Just a tad more sharpening would not hurt, but it might be sharper in your bigger file.
No reason at all to discredit yourself for the PP you have done. It looks very good.

Overall quality: I think it is very good.

[Wavelength]

I liked the sky very much; i would like some more brightening in the deep forest region
Regards

[Stagecoach]

Hi Andre,

Thanks for the encouragement. Interesting that you mention the sharpness as it's an aspect that I try to not overdo and simply follow the Colin Southern guidelines. I have found that I can really push the sharpening with subjects such as my bugs and critters but for some reason unable with foliage.

With respect to this image I find the sharpening adequate at the foreground and horizon but lacking in the foliage so perhaps I need to start looking at localised sharpening, or is it that the foliage could do with some local contrast enhancement?.

I have also only just found there's quite a difference in my perception of a finished sharpened image depending which pair of glasses I'm wearing at the time, some standardisation required

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

I liked the sky very much; i would like some more brightening in the deep forest region
Regards

H Nandakumar,

Here's a version that I did last night taking account of some of the previous comments and the forest was lightened.



Is this light enough?

Grahame

[ajohnw]

As some will know I have been working on landscapes and to put it simply what I have been producing has not been comparable to my expectations when viewing the scenes.

I have found that I've been putting a lot of time into PP work on the images but have to say this has been somewhat dis-jointed and the final images have led to me wondering if the results are part due to the camera and lens I'm using. Basically the images have not contained the contrast, clarity and sharpness I want although I'm not looking for the over-processed wow factor.

Grahame

I think you may have a camera and lens problem but the same would apply what ever you used.

Firstly the camera. On a scene like that there is a tendency to look round it. Our eyes adapt to what ever is in the central part of the vision and some how our brain takes care of the rest. We also see logarithmically and our eyes have a rather large dynamic range. The camera on the other hand sees linearly and can't adapt to everything in the shot as it sees all that the lens can take in and that's that. This means that some pp will be needed to make it look like it did to the eye. I doubt for instance if you could see shadows that deep in the near tree line. The same thing hold anywhere in the shot. Even If the colour balance changes in a scene our eyes will correct it.

Your comments remind me of my 1st 28mm on full frame great for landscapes or so I thought. I found it often isn't. Take this one. If it was much larger the detail could be seen if some one looked at it closely but if they stepped back to see all of it the detail would be back where it is at this size. The problem is that the wide angle lens has crammed so much into the shot that there is no way that much detail can seen when the whole thing is looked at. The wide angle might work fine in a situation such as sunset taken on a beach which was more or less featureless. On this shot the trees have to be as they are at this size. 50mm might make a better job of it if you can get what you want in the frame. The feature in foreground and camera near the ground can be used in some circumstances for any wide angle lens.

Must go. Hope this helps.

John
-

[FrankMi]

I think that a number of changes you made have improved this image, Grahame. Not only Nandakumar's suggestion on lightening the forest but also changing the aspect ratio by losing some of the sky and moving the horizon off the centerline has helped. The dark areas in the foreground of the forest give a more effective separation from the grasses and better separation for the forest trees.

This is a much better result than I would have expected based on where you started. Very well done!

[Stagecoach]

John,

Your comment regarding the wide angle used on this specific scene is right in that whilst working for the sky all it's done for the middle area is crammed a load of trees together containing small repetitive detail too small to see, hence being uninteresting.

I have taken some previous satisfactory wide angle scenes of the landscapes here but in each one they had not only something of interest in the foreground to horizon region but also shape to the land.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Frank,

Pleased you like the changes.

You may not be aware but as a project and goal with my introduction into landscape photography I intend to concentrate on the interior of the main island here in Fiji which is very much uninhabited and untouched forest and hills. Due to travelling ease, basically very few roads, restrictions are going to be that they will be daytime shots and ideally cloudy conditions for the lighting.

One of the reasons I have taken this on is that I would guess 95% of images of Fiji consist of sea, beach, palm trees and of course sunsets, whereas 90% of the island I'm on consists of forest which has a beauty of a different type but is rarely seen in print.

This particular image even taking account of the blandness of the mid area has now given me a greater appreciation of what can be achieved using the practices and advice that has been given. The value of course is that this new knowledge now helps when I'm out looking for scenes to photograph.

Is there ever an end to learning?

Grahame

[FrankMi]

Is there ever an end to learning?

Nope, not as long as you go on living!

[jamn4ex]

This was a very interesting thread. I think the changes suggested and made, definitely improved the image. Threads like this remind me how much more I need to learn. Thanks for posting Grahame.
oh yea thanks for the lesson Frank. Its good to see ya commenting.