Cant stop tinkering

[KingsHockeyFan]

I am trying to learn/refine some post processing techniques and am hoping I can get some constructive criticism for the attached picture. It may not be a style that everyone enjoys and that's fine....but even if you don't like the style, you could comment on some technical aspects. I am going to take and apply each suggestion to see what I get. Please do not download.
Thanks in advance.



1/125 seconds at f6.7
18mm
iso 200

[James G]

Hi Kris, you have not said what software you use.
I use CS6 and my 'standard' workflow is to first adjust an image in ACR (Adobe camera raw) and then post process for final presentation in Photoshop itself.

If I were working your image, I think I would be looking for more 'pop' I think it is a bit dull considering the effect of the rain would have brightened the scene more. The flowers in the borders, and palm trees? reflect this looking too dull. So, I wound try increasing vibrance across the image, and I would also enhance the colours slightly. (If you have tried this and found that lifting the reds and oranges results in too much saturation, try changing the blending of the hue and saturation layer to luminosity to damp down the effect.)

We all have our own preferred workflow for working mages, and I'm no exception, but, as a result of some 'mentoring' I was involved with a while back, I put together the pdf at the link below, which tries to summarise/simplify my preferences. It was intended as an aide memoire to the people I has helping with Photoshop, but it may help you with your 'tinkering'
Just one qualification though.... It is a summary of a decision path I use when working an image, but it's the image that dictates the actual flow, nothing is written in stone, so use what works.

Hope this helps... you have a nice image ...

http://1drv.ms/1INe86E

[KingsHockeyFan]

Hi Kris, you have not said what software you use.
I use CS6 and my 'standard' workflow is to first adjust an image in ACR (Adobe camera raw) and then post process for final presentation in Photoshop itself.

If I were working your image, I think I would be looking for more 'pop' I think it is a bit dull considering the effect of the rain would have brightened the scene more. The flowers in the borders, and palm trees? reflect this looking too dull. So, I wound try increasing vibrance across the image, and I would also enhance the colours slightly. (If you have tried this and found that lifting the reds and oranges results in too much saturation, try changing the blending of the hue and saturation layer to luminosity to damp down the effect.)

We all have our own preferred workflow for working mages, and I'm no exception, but, as a result of some 'mentoring' I was involved with a while back, I put together the pdf at the link below, which tries to summarise/simplify my preferences. It was intended as an aide memoire to the people I has helping with Photoshop, but it may help you with your 'tinkering'
Just one qualification though.... It is a summary of a decision path I use when working an image, but it's the image that dictates the actual flow, nothing is written in stone, so use what works.

Hope this helps... you have a nice image ...

http://1drv.ms/1INe86E

James,
My workflow consists of first importing into LR. In LR I adjust wb, adjust exposure, reduce tonal range by bringing down highlights and up blacks, applying lens corrections, and completing color/luminance noise reduction. From there I move into PS and use adjustment masks to either globally or selectively adjust curves/hue/sat. I also typically add a D/B layer to play with the light. Once I am happy, I will flatten then crop then sharpen and save a jpg.

I will get a chance to read your pdf once I get home (work computer wont open the link). I will also try some vibrancy adjustments.

Thank you

[Polar01]

Kris like the image, nicely done. Not sure what your vision is however now for a suggestion, I took your image into Adobe Camera Raw and moving the highlights slider almost all the way to the left I was able to get a lot more detail from the sky as it was looking rather flat. I also moved the white slider to the left a small amount, it did not affect most of the image only the sky which also helped to bring out a little more of the detail in the sky.
If you like I could post the results.

Cheers: Allan

[KingsHockeyFan]

Kris like the image, nicely done. Not sure what your vision is however now for a suggestion, I took your image into Adobe Camera Raw and moving the highlights slider almost all the way to the left I was able to get a lot more detail from the sky as it was looking rather flat. I also moved the white slider to the left a small amount, it did not affect most of the image only the sky which also helped to bring out a little more of the detail in the sky.
If you like I could post the results.

Cheers: Allan

Allen,
The sky has become my biggest issue with this shot. I have played with tons of adjustments and cant find one I am truly happy with. I will try what you are suggesting.

Thank you

[davidedric]

Hi Kris,

The sky is a bit odd. If I run the mouse over, it is exactly neutral all over, just different shades of grey. I have never seen a colour image like that. Have you desaturated the sky completely, or converted it to B&W? Sure you can use highlights to stretch out the bright tones, which also I think improves some other parts of the image, but there is nothing to be got out of the sky, in my opinion.

For my taste, I would also increase saturation in the greens, but that's just a view.

Dave

[Shadowman]

Kris,

How would you describe the style, wondering why you'd think it wouldn't be appreciated by viewers? I see a good use of perspective, interesting choice of tones to convey distance.

I would probably destroy your concept and add a bit of contrast to the sky and perhaps decrease some of the contrast to the farthest trees to add a bit of aerial perspective. However, as it is your vision I wouldn't change a thing, I just have a tendency to treat images like this as if it were a painting; which is why I mentioned perspective so much.

[KingsHockeyFan]

Hi Kris,

The sky is a bit odd. If I run the mouse over, it is exactly neutral all over, just different shades of grey. I have never seen a colour image like that. Have you desaturated the sky completely, or converted it to B&W? Sure you can use highlights to stretch out the bright tones, which also I think improves some other parts of the image, but there is nothing to be got out of the sky, in my opinion.

For my taste, I would also increase saturation in the greens, but that's just a view.

Dave

I have not desaturated or converted the sky to B&W. I tried to stretch the tones, all I got was banding. I tried to add color, didn't look good at all. I tried a sky replacement, no avail (although I generally suck at sky replacements anyway plus I don't like to add elements to a photo that wasn't there to begin with). I think my best solution would've been to take a second shot, exposed for the sky, and stacked them.
I will take a look at adding some saturation to the greens.

Thank you

[KingsHockeyFan]

Kris,

How would you describe the style, wondering why you'd think it wouldn't be appreciated by viewers? I see a good use of perspective, interesting choice of tones to convey distance.

I would probably destroy your concept and add a bit of contrast to the sky and perhaps decrease some of the contrast to the farthest trees to add a bit of aerial perspective. However, as it is your vision I wouldn't change a thing, I just have a tendency to treat images like this as if it were a painting; which is why I mentioned perspective so much.

John,
I would say this is a tone mapped image that maybe gets close to edge of over tone mapping. I get the feeling that tone mapped images, especially ones that appear close to over mapping in a pseudo HDR style have a very polarizing audience (love em or hate em with not much between). It was not my intent to over tone map or even approach HDR with a single exposure. I have a photo that is taken from the opposite perspective (from under the gazebo in the background looking toward where I am standing in this shot), and I have it printed on canvas to look very much like a painting---I guess I was going for something similar here.

Thank you

[Shadowman]

John,
I would say this is a tone mapped image that maybe gets close to edge of over tone mapping. I get the feeling that tone mapped images, especially ones that appear close to over mapping in a pseudo HDR style have a very polarizing audience (love em or hate em with not much between). It was not my intent to over tone map or even approach HDR with a single exposure. I have a photo that is taken from the opposite perspective (from under the gazebo in the background looking toward where I am standing in this shot), and I have it printed on canvas to look very much like a painting---I guess I was going for something similar here.

Thank you

Kris,

Thanks for the follow up on your style used for this image. I saw your response to David Eric and your response on software used. Have you tried using the graduated filter in LR to slightly add tone to the sky?

[KingsHockeyFan]

Kris,

Thanks for the follow up on your style used for this image. I saw your response to David Eric and your response on software used. Have you tried using the graduated filter in LR to slightly add tone to the sky?

John,
I have not. I tried adding some tone to the clouds with a color range built mask, but not a graduated filter. I will give that a try.
Thank you

[davidedric]

I also created a mask of the sky using Lightroom's adjustment brush, but still couldn't get an interesting realistic sky. I don't think Lightroom is up to the job. Replacement is another way, but like Kris I don't like to put in something that wasn't there.

Dave

[KingsHockeyFan]

I adjusted vibrancy as suggested (flowers/greens/overall), I reduced highlights and increased contrast in the sky (as much as I could without banding), I tried adding a gradient, but it didn't work out so well.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

(please don't download)




for comparisons sake---here is the SOOC (please don't download)

[Aeros]

Kris,

Thanks for the follow up on your style used for this image. I saw your response to David Eric and your response on software used. Have you tried using the graduated filter in LR to slightly add tone to the sky?

Good advice here by John,this is what I would do.

[Shadowman]

I adjusted vibrancy as suggested (flowers/greens/overall), I reduced highlights and increased contrast in the sky (as much as I could without banding), I tried adding a gradient, but it didn't work out so well.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

(please don't download)




for comparisons sake---here is the SOOC (please don't download)

I like the treatment you applied to the trees, the foreground and midground are just fine and the nice improvement on the sky.