Landscapes

[Colin Southern]

Sorry I cannot help you with the GPS Tagging question Antonio, but perhaps you can help me with a continual problem I have in the area I live.

Most of the countryside here are either flat fields or wood and forests. My problem is the woods and forests - there is just too much fine detail in the leaves and twigs etc. and I am finding this fine detail is a big distraction in the finished image. BUT I still want to retain the overall sharpness of the image - am I asking the impossible, or are there any "tricks of the trade" to counter this problem?

Here is an example of what I mean...the top third of the image lacks depth and is a real mess! It is a pseudo-HDR processed image (single exposure) as I generally like the "pop" that HDR processing gives.

Hi Rob,

I think that the issue is not so much the high-frequency detail as it is the overall composition - there really isn't anything to lead the eye through the scene.

A couple of suggestions ...

1. If you're going to include the foreground rocks, then get the camera 2 or 3 feet lower for a more agressive perspective, like I've done here ...



Or ...

2. As an alternative,

Lop it off altogether ...

[Lon Howard]

Hi Lon,

How about this as an alternative?

Thanks Colin,

You've again revealed a common issue with HDR, which is - with everything exposed well - a flat looking image. Just curious how you solved it - color burn maybe?? Anyway, I did this redo in a real hurry because some friends are hauling me off to the golf course now (ok, going willingly ... ); just used the burn tool in targeted areas to try to create some depth. It's very sloppy because I'm scurrying but I hope the idea comes across. Still needs some more work and I'll be back to it later. Thanks again!

[NoCard]

Yikes! What a lot of interesting ideas for the image, sorry to have blocked up the landscape thread a bit with this one, it wasn't intended!

But this sort of feedback is outstanding - massive respect to all !!!

My initial thought is that Antonio must have been stood behind me when I took the shot, as that is what I "thought I saw" on the day.

Thanks Davidd for the suggestion that I adjust the 0EV version, but my dilemma here is that I really like the effect HDR has on water and skies, so, even if just to get that aspect of the image how I like it, I will still be using HDR when the need arises.

Thanks to Steve and Chris for the "Orton" effect I will be looking closely at this, as I have not come across this one before.

Then there's Colin's suggestion of losing the foreground, lowering the POV and reversing the format.
This approach has kept the bit I thought was "messy", HOWEVER...I like the way you compressed the height, it has given it a "new POV" and added a lot to the composition - very clever idea!

They have all changed the image in so many ways, I need to quietly sit down and digest the ideas and see what bits I can "swipe" to get what I am looking for. I may be gone for some time...

[kaneohebud]

Rob:
Don't worry about "blocking the landscape thread." You opened a subject of interest to many of us and the resulting feedback has been very helpful. Thanks to all.

[Nicola]

sorry to have blocked up the landscape thread a bit with this one, it wasn't intended!

sorry for what..?
such discussions are helpful and instructive for every member/guest!

[Antonio Correia]

When I started this thread some time ago - how long ? almost two years I think... Time passes so quickly - I never thought that it could be alive for so long.

I know that this happens because I have been insisting on it every now and then, with my own images and commenting the images of others while learning from everybody.

It is normal that some contributions are more enlightening than others... corresponding to photographers with more knowledge.

All contributions are welcome and me - as a humble contributor - will keep posting my opinions and points of view honestly, expecting others to do the same as it has been happening.

Personally, I would like to thank you all for contributing to this thread. I am sure Cambridge in Colour has the same opinion. (or similar )

I am sorry but I do not have anything new to post
I was a bit repetitive wasn't I ?

[Dave Humphries]

I was a bit repetitive wasn't I ?

Only a little ...

.... just a bit

Personally, I would like to thank you all for contributing to this thread. I am sure Cambridge in Colour has the same opinion.

Yes we do!

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin,

You've again revealed a common issue with HDR, which is - with everything exposed well - a flat looking image. Just curious how you solved it - color burn maybe?? Anyway, I did this redo in a real hurry because some friends are hauling me off to the golf course now (ok, going willingly ... ); just used the burn tool in targeted areas to try to create some depth. It's very sloppy because I'm scurrying but I hope the idea comes across. Still needs some more work and I'll be back to it later. Thanks again!

Hi Lon,

As a "rule of thumb", most HDR programs tend to damage - oops, I mean - manipulate images in a number of areas ...

- Over-saturate
- Over "clarify" (low-frequence sharpening (ie small % but large radius)
- Wash-out

So basically all I did was take steps to reverse all these things. Ironically, the best way to get the "look" that I did is to simply not shoot HDR in the first place; I can't see anything in the scene that requires the techniques from a dynamic range perspective -- so all it's really achieving is the tone-mapped / ultra-processed look (which is what we're subsequently reversing the effects of anyway).

[Colin Southern]

When I started this thread some time ago - how long ? almost two years I think... Time passes so quickly - I never thought that it could be alive for so long.

I think the main reason is that people read the title and thought is was official CiC Policy that landscapes be posted here!

[arith]

This is really two pictures displayed as they are supposed to be hanged, the views are in reality further apart and are at different magnification, apart from that, it is close.

I found out when doing this that 576MB is too big for my computer to convert to jpeg

Also it looks a bit small. Better viewed in new tab or window.

[Antonio Correia]

I think the main reason is that people read the title and thought is was official CiC Policy that landscapes be posted here!

Thank you as far as I am concerned

[NoCard]

I think the main reason is that people read the title and thought is was official CiC Policy that landscapes be posted here!

Hi Colin, It would be very cool it this thread could be recognised as such, and made "sticky", there is lots of good advice and info in here for all levels.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin, It would be very cool it this thread could be recognised as such, and made "sticky", there is lots of good advice and info in here for all levels.

Hi Rob,

To be honest, these super-threads are both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing from the point of view that people who are too "shy" to start their own thread still have a place to post, but it's a curse from the perspective that there's so many things going on in them that they're probably a BAD place to post images for constructive critique because many members stay well clear of them (including me, normally).

I'm kinda hoping they'll die a natural death to be honest - personally rather see images seeking advice (like yours and Lons) in their own seperate threads so that we can give them more targeted advice (and probably more people would look at them).

But for now they live on

[NoCard]

Hi Rob,

To be honest, these super-threads are both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing from the point of view that people who are too "shy" to start their own thread still have a place to post, but it's a curse from the perspective that there's so many things going on in them that they're probably a BAD place to post images for constructive critique because many members stay well clear of them (including me, normally).

I'm kinda hoping they'll die a natural death to be honest - personally rather see images seeking advice (like yours and Lons) in their own seperate threads so that we can give them more targeted advice (and probably more people would look at them).

But for now they live on

Understood

[Lon Howard]

This is my last go-round with this image, for now at least. Thanks to Colin for his help on it, and also thanks to Rob for posting his image and his feelings on hdr. I think for now I am with Rob in feeling that in some cases (this image included), even though you sometimes go through undoing some of the hdr effects on images that don't demand it from a dynamic range perspective, you can create a mood that would otherwise be unattainable. As my skills improve, there is the chance that I could change my mind about that, but should that happen I won't feel that I have 'taken the long way around' because the best way to learn is by doing, and not necessarily accepting or discarding things outright.

In this version of the image, I went though the single image hdr process again but with only half as much range as before, and with less strength and microcontrast. The other notable changes were using a dark linear gradient from the bottom to about 3/8 way up, and using a light touch of Topaz simplify instead of the heavier dose of the crisp preset in Topaz adjust that was used previously. Thanks again for viewing.

[Katy Noelle]

I think the main reason is that people read the title and thought is was official CiC Policy that landscapes be posted here!

No, not the main reason. but one reason. I think that it, also, has a lot to do with the members who 'hang out' in this corner of CiC - they have a good rapport and a very interesting and ongoing discussion. Plus, many of us just want to know what Antonio thinks!

[Nicola]

Hi Rob,

To be honest, these super-threads are both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing from the point of view that people who are too "shy" to start their own thread still have a place to post, but it's a curse from the perspective that there's so many things going on in them that they're probably a BAD place to post images for constructive critique because many members stay well clear of them (including me, normally).

I'm kinda hoping they'll die a natural death to be honest - personally rather see images seeking advice (like yours and Lons) in their own seperate threads so that we can give them more targeted advice (and probably more people would look at them).

But for now they live on

Personally, I think that super-thread like this are hard to die because, for low level members like me, are a quick way to have the most important and evident critcs about mid-low level pictures.
It seems to me that low level pictures are some times not so much discussed if posted in separated thread, or some times, when the picture is a good one, many "too pro" (I mean too high level) critics could put in confusion the photographer...
finally, I think that in order to grow up as a photographer, one has to watch and compare his work with someone else's work as much as possible. Super-thread with a specific subject can help to do this without loosing the way in a jungle of single photo trhead, often it's hard to undersand the subject from the title.
this is my opinion, but I can be wrong
anyway thanks to all the members and moderators, CiC is a really good and friendly forum!
cheers
nicola

[Nicola]

I think it works but I also think that it needs air. It needs to breath, it's too tight
It is an unusual angle but it works. I like it Colours are OK, definition OK...
Perhaps you could clone the little triangle of sky. But if you are going to give more room to the main subject it will appear bigger. You would have then to get around this problem somehow.
Let's see what others say.

driving the subject of the last discussions away to what could leads to a "word's battle"...

thanks Antonio for the feedback!
you are right: I have to clone away the triangle of sky and the composition is too tight, I saw that when I shooed, but I can't still fly so there wasn't no way to be higher for shooting...
Nicola

[Colin Southern]

Personally, I think that super-thread like this are hard to die because, for low level members like me, are a quick way to have the most important and evident critcs about mid-low level pictures.
It seems to me that low level pictures are some times not so much discussed if posted in separated thread, or some times, when the picture is a good one, many "too pro" (I mean too high level) critics could put in confusion the photographer...
finally, I think that in order to grow up as a photographer, one has to watch and compare his work with someone else's work as much as possible. Super-thread with a specific subject can help to do this without loosing the way in a jungle of single photo trhead, often it's hard to undersand the subject from the title.
this is my opinion, but I can be wrong
anyway thanks to all the members and moderators, CiC is a really good and friendly forum!
cheers
nicola

Hi Nicola,

Thanks for your feedback.

Sean, Dave, Donald, and I have discussed them at length in the past. We discussed closing them - leaving them "as is" - and finally "leaving them, but archiving the excess content periodically" (we were starting to get complaints that many people were avoiding them because they were too slow to load because of their size). In the end we went with the 3rd option (obviously), but they typically still have at least 100 to 200 replies in them, which means that their performance is still "sub-optimal" - and thus you'll find that many people don't visit them often.

So as they stand - folks are more than welcome to post to them, and if they meet the needs of those folks then great. Just so long as folks realise that (despite the title) it was never official policy that landscapes / portraits SHOULD be posted there, and that people who do may not always get the volume of feedback they're seeking.

[NoCard]

Hi Nicola,

Thanks for your feedback.

Sean, Dave, Donald, and I have discussed them at length in the past. We discussed closing them - leaving them "as is" - and finally "leaving them, but archiving the excess content periodically" (we were starting to get complaints that many people were avoiding them because they were too slow to load because of their size). In the end we went with the 3rd option (obviously), but they typically still have at least 100 to 200 replies in them, which means that their performance is still "sub-optimal" - and thus you'll find that many people don't visit them often.

So as they stand - folks are more than welcome to post to them, and if they meet the needs of those folks then great. Just so long as folks realise that (despite the title) it was never official policy that landscapes / portraits SHOULD be posted there, and that people who do may not always get the volume of feedback they're seeking.

Thanks for the clear explanation Colin, I have a pretty poor bandwidth here in central France (<1mbps), and not noticed any degradation of speed with these pages as against other image rich pages, this is a credit to how well the forum is administered.

I will continue to post to these threads as my experience so far has been that they provide a high "quality" of response rather than a high "quantity".

For specific critique and comment, I'll take "quality" over "quantity" anyday