City Lights at Twilight

[Brownbear]

Below are my edits.

I'm still finding post-processing very challenging with unfamiliar subject like this. Border and text added in Picasa (it's easy).

Colin, my sincere apologies but I just couldn't manage an edit as fine as yours but I learned a lot from trying.

I used Colin's sharpening technique, boosted the saturation, used curves to increase contrast, used curves to decrease the highlights in just the buildings (because the increased contrast made the signs on the buildings too bright to read), and used levels to play up the blue midtones. I also zapped the dust bunny and the errant plane!




#1



#2 Panorama



#3 Un-cropped just FYI (big sky with all the interesting clouds on top)



Thank you to all! I will be trying this type of image again next month.

Please Note... the 1st image is sharpened more as suggested by Colin. The 2nd and 3rd image I leave for comparison purposes.

[IzzieK]

Somewhere along your or somebody else's walls...these shots should be hanged there for people to admire...You've become very good at these...

[Brownbear]

Dear Izzie,

Thank you for your kind words. Truly encouraging and appreciated. As is your sense of humour, and pointing out errant dust bunnies.

Somewhere along your or somebody else's walls...these shots should be hanged there for people to admire...You've become very good at these...

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin,

Thank you so much for taking the time to show me your version, and teach me how to push pixels. Night scenes are new to me as is post processing them and for me this is a learning exercise, and you have made it even more so. I didn't think of pushing the saturation because the colours seem so blue already.

Hi Christina,

You're welcome

When processing shots like this there really aren't any "rules" as such - perhaps only one and that's "you do whatever makes it look good". In terms of saturation - push it up - pull it down - stop when it looks it's best. Where will that point me? Who the heck knows? Who the heck cares? And the same goes for all the other sliders. That, on the surface, is the easy part -- it's the interaction of sliders that complicates things -- but seeing what various interactions do is called "learning" then applying that new-found knowledge to other edits is then called "experience". The more you do - the more you get. When you do experiment, what's the worst thing that can happen? On that note, you might like to use the snapshots feature of ACR to get you back to known points if you stray too far from the path.

The difference in your image is extraordinary! Thank you for showing me this. Your version shows me that I need to show my pixels who the boss is and it also shows me how pretty night scenes of skyscapers can be, inspiring me to try this again. For sure!

Thanks - but - it was really quite trivial to do ... nothing hard about it at all. And I'm not saying that to show off - my point is that it's just a small handful of techniques that anyone can apply with a few clicks. You can be doing edits like that with just 3 or 4 mini-lessons.

When shooting scenes like that, something "has to give" - they're extreme contrast because some areas are going to be as dark as the inside of a cave at night - and others are going to be too bright to record (incident light from pin light sources) - and other areas (illuminated by reflected light) are going to be somewhere inbetween. So people often worry about "correct" exposure. "Correct" exposure is a myth in the technical sense of the word for scenes like this - just accept it and move on. So - how does one set the exposure? I do two things (1) I use a rule of thumb; since shots like this are mostly about the low-mid-tones to high-mid-tones, a shot that looks good on the review screen of the camera is pretty much in the ballpark (close to centre-field), and (2) bracketing. Think of it this way - you've spent an hour packing your gear and driving to the site & setting up; if your starting point for a shot like this is - say - 15 seconds @ F16 - how much extra time does it take to grab some frames @ 4, 8, 30, and 60 seconds? A couple of days ago I created 3 new images (in pretty crappy conditions) - those 3 came from 210 frames. Do you think I care how many times I press the release and fire off a burst of 5 shots? It's not about how many frames are eventually discarded - it's about having "the chosen ones" that best capture a pleasing composition, exposure, and light. I fired off brackets of 5 every time - sometimes zoomed in - sometimes zoomed out - sometimes 1/2 way - as the light changed I'd change the composition - constantly looking for something else that might work. I think I was there for an hour and a 1/2 all up. So don't be afraid to experiment at the time, and don't forget to think. In the past I've told the story of my previous life when I used to fly light twin engine aircraft - and the irony is that when you're learning to fly them, most of the first 10 hours is on 1 engine! Procedures have to be learned to handle engine failures and as soon as you get airborne - zonk - instructor fails an engine. Downwind - zonk - there goes another one. Lined up for the approach - zonk - there we go again. Needless to say that it keeps one VERY busy in the cockpit - constantly thinking / evaluating / reacting. And my point? I'm thinking / evaluating / reacting (and experimenting) just as hard during any shoot like this. Don't think for a moment it's a case of sitting back - glass of wine in hand - waiting for the moment to go "click".

Did you also add clarity to the water and sky? I ask because my tutorials in Lightroom state that one should never add clarity to sky and water.

Sure did - I do it all the time (especially to skies). Whoever told you not to do it needs to be (oops, can't say that anymore - not politically correct). Clarity is basically just a high radius contrast booster. It's SUPERB for adding drama to clouds in the sky (assuming that's what you want to do). Generally, the only rule I have with clarity is "don't use it on portraits" - it'll produce a "train wreck" of a result.

I will try processing this image later today, pushing my pixels to the max, and I hope to post an image closer to your extraordinary version.

I looked at your updated version below; the biggest thing you're not optimising is your sharpening. Open it up again and bring up an unsharp mask with a radius of around 0.3 to .5 and vary the amount - and look at the effect (toggle preview off and on a few times) - I suspect you'll fine a sweet spot where it changes quite dramatically for the better right before your eyes!

PS: When you're done with the sharpening (try around 0.4px @ 200%), run a dodge tool (set to shadows @ around 5%) over the buildings 2 or 3 times to improve the local contrast - that'll make a huge difference too.

[Mike Buckley]

my tutorials in Lightroom state that one should never add clarity to sky and water.

I missed that the first time around and only noticed it now because of your discussion with Colin. Adobe's clarity adjusts the mid-tone contrast. It's unfathomable for me to me to think that a series of tutorials would advocate never increasing mid-tone contrast in skies and water.

The moral of the story: make sure you understand what each slider affects. As an example, the term, "clarity," is meaningless for me but I understand the phrase, "mid-tone contrast."

[FrankMi]

I just caught this thread and what a great learning experience it is. Thank you so much for posting Christina, and many thanks as well for all of those that have contributed!

[Brownbear]

Colin,

Thank you so much for the in-depth advice. Exceptionally helpful and informative. I would also like to say that your advice is also inspiring and amusing. I've never flown a plane but I have sat in the co-pilot seat on a few occasions. (the perks of being prone to motion sickness) I have replaced the 1st image which is sharpened more aggressively.

Mike,

I will review that specific tutorial to ensure that I didn't misinterpret the advice. It is one of the tips I remember because almost all of my images have sky or water in them, hence since that day I have not added a touch of clarity to these portions of my images. I will review the effects/meaning of all my PP sliders.

[Brownbear]

Hi Frank,

Thank you for commenting. Very nice to hear that especially from one of my numerous instructors. At this point in my learning curve the only way I can give back is for others to learn from my learning experiences.

I just caught this thread and what a great learning experience it is. Thank you so much for posting Christina, and many thanks as well for all of those that have contributed!

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Thank you so much for the in-depth advice. Exceptionally helpful and informative. I would also like to say that your advice is also inspiring and amusing. I've never flown a plane but I have sat in the co-pilot seat on a few occasions. (the perks of being prone to motion sickness) I have replaced the 1st image which is sharpened more aggressively.

Hi Christina,

Can you see the difference sharpening made?

In a nut-shell, images with high-frequency detail (ie "lots of small stuff") will be most affected by small-radius / big amount sharpening (on these down-sampled images anyway - slightly different numbers when working on the full resolution versions).

Next lesson - dial up a burn tool, set to shadows and 5% (and about 40% to 60% softness) - brush size set to a bit more than the height of the buildings (infact, duplicate the layer first) then swipe 2 or 3 times from one side of the image to the other. Then turn the layer off and on a few times and look at the nice things it does to the dark grays of the buildings. It could well be a "penny drops" moment for local contrast enhancement.

[Mark von Kanel]

so much to learn so little time to do it in... one thing i have learnt is that black boarders work better on this sort of shot for me.

[Brownbear]

Hi Colin,

Yes, I can see the difference the sharpening made. Even though I used your sharpening technique in the first edit, I was too shy with it. Thank you for your explanation in reference to this particular scene. Very good to know.

1. On a full resolution image would you use a radius of about 1 for scenes with buildings?

Following is the image using the burn tool on just the high rises. (my interpretation of your instruction)

I also changed the border to a black one after seeing Mark's comment. I figured out how to add it using Photoshop CC but the text is done in Picasa.

2. Why set the brush to 40-50% softness? I usually use a brush set to 0% softness presuming a very soft brush is best for image quality and subtle effects?



With respect to the burning exercise I like the effect of the LCE on the buildings. Is this a way to add local contrast without losing contrast in the other areas of the image as would happen using the curves tool unless one erased the effect? Also somewhere in my edits I seemed to have brightened the brightest signs. For example in the original image I can see the detail of the Shaw sign on the top of the building with defined letters, but not so in the new edit even though the burn tool should darken the exposure of the sign.




Thank you Colin! Truly appreciated.

Hi Christina,

Can you see the difference sharpening made?

In a nut-shell, images with high-frequency detail (ie "lots of small stuff") will be most affected by small-radius / big amount sharpening (on these down-sampled images anyway - slightly different numbers when working on the full resolution versions).

Next lesson - dial up a burn tool, set to shadows and 5% (and about 40% to 60% softness) - brush size set to a bit more than the height of the buildings (infact, duplicate the layer first) then swipe 2 or 3 times from one side of the image to the other. Then turn the layer off and on a few times and look at the nice things it does to the dark grays of the buildings. It could well be a "penny drops" moment for local contrast enhancement.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mark,

Indeed!

I would like to ask why black borders work better with this type of image. I chose a white border because I like light, airy and colourful images. Is it simply because a black border will keep hold your eye inside the frame?

Thank you.

so much to learn so little time to do it in... one thing i have learnt is that black boarders work better on this sort of shot for me.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

I watched the Lightroom tutorial on clarity again which advises...

Clarity is an adapted midtone contrast tool which adds contrast to edges, enhancing detail (especially in textured areas) and contrast.

Recommending not to...

Use a number above 40-45 (lLghtroom 4) as it will result in image degradation. (noise and halos are mentioned as examples)

Not to add clarity to...

- Blue sky
- Areas of constant colour
- Areas of contrasting colour
- Out of focus areas
- Flowing water
- Human skin, especially female skin (adds 10-15 years)

I see that it doesn't mention clouds in sky or still water, so my interpretation of the tutorial was too broad.

Thank you.

I missed that the first time around and only noticed it now because of your discussion with Colin. Adobe's clarity adjusts the mid-tone contrast. It's unfathomable for me to me to think that a series of tutorials would advocate never increasing mid-tone contrast in skies and water.

The moral of the story: make sure you understand what each slider affects. As an example, the term, "clarity," is meaningless for me but I understand the phrase, "mid-tone contrast."

[Mike Buckley]

Not to add clarity to...

- Blue sky
- Areas of constant colour
- Areas of contrasting colour
- Out of focus areas
- Flowing water
- Human skin, especially female skin (adds 10-15 years)

Though there is an exception to everything, that list makes sense in general.