Fog Approaching from the East - B&W

[Sam W]

I was thinking more along the lines of the original and the first three edits but with the haze removed. Let me know whether your post-processing software has a Dehaze tool that can be applied selectively.

I believe LR CC does but I do not have that version...the closest thing I have is to increase clarity and tweak the tones. But again, I think the end result would leave the western facing mountains too dark for my preference. Thanks

[Dave Humphries]

I am so impressed that you can see the differences in sharpening I did between edits. I hardly can but it was a conscience decision. Could it be I have a 10 year old monitor?...or you got eyes of a hawk (both probably). Editing in LR I applied low output sharpening for the original and then high for the second two. On Edit 3 below I chose middle of the ground (standard output sharpening) and reduced the current radius by 20%.

If the monitor is CRT technology, I would say it is most definitely the case.

If it is an old LCD, it depends whether its resolution is less than that your image.


Talking of images sizes/resolutions, I noticed that these were all uploaded to TinyPic larger than TinyPic's maximum of 1600 px width - this results in them downsizing (and softening) it to 1599 px.

Ideally (for us to view here), you should be downsizing to exactly 1600 px yourself, then trying the following UnSharp Mask (USM) sharpening settings; Amount: 100%, Radius: 0.3 px (you used 0.8 px, but on a larger image) and Threshold of say: 1, you might even get away with 0, as I can't see any noise. Unfortunately; my downsize procedure and USM settings are for PS, I'm afraid I don't know how they equate to the detail and edge masking settings in LR sharpening

Cheers, Dave

[Sam W]

Talking of images sizes/resolutions, I noticed that these were all uploaded to TinyPic larger than TinyPic's maximum of 1600 px width - this results in them downsizing (and softening) it to 1599 px.

Dave, I uploaded to Tiny Pic at 1599. So I hope that they are not being down sized.

In Edit #3 was the sharpness acceptable after the adjustments I made? Thanks Sam

[Dave Humphries]

Dave, I uploaded to Tiny Pic at 1599. So I hope that they are not being down sized.

In Edit #3 was the sharpness acceptable after the adjustments I made? Thanks Sam

Well that scuppers my diagnostics, I'd rather you did either 1600 px or 1598 px.
I'm actually quite serious here, since as I say, the size of 1599 px is the usual clue that people have uploaded too large.

Personally, I'd have used a finer radius, as said, but "Edit 3" is better, yes.

[Mike Buckley]

Sam,

I just now downloaded your third edit (purely an arbitrary choice) and I had no trouble bringing out a lot more detail in the area currently displaying haze. I did it by adjusting the curve in that part of the image and by pushing the pixels really hard. In your standalone version of Lightroom, you can't directly manipulate the tone curve except when affecting the entire image. So, try using an Adjustment Brush and making the bright tones substantially brighter and the dark tones substantially darker. I don't use those sliders so I don't know how effectively you'll be able to emulate the direct adjustment of the tone curve, but it might be worth a try.

[Sam W]

Well that scuppers my diagnostics, I'd rather you did either 1600 px or 1598 px.
I'm actually quite serious here, since as I say, the size of 1599 px is the usual clue that people have uploaded too large.

Personally, I'd have used a finer radius, as said, but "Edit 3" is better, yes.

Hi Dave - I have the radius at its lowest possible in edit #4 below. I increased the "sharpness detail" and I think it helps. Best regards - Sam

Edit 4:

[Donald]

I'm getting here a bit late ... and after a whole lot of very good discussion has taken place.

I'll stick to aiming my comments at the version immediately above this post; i.e. edit 4. I do feel that it is the strongest image in terms of the balance of the composition. It 'feels' right to me. I'm sure in terms of composition, others will prefer other versions.

This one works so well for me because I think it best brings out the three primary layers in the image: - a) the land back to the base of the hills; b) the hills and, c) the sky. And then within each of those we have the mist, the line of the hills and the clouds forming secondary layers. All of that, for me, adds up to an image that has all the right things in the right places. That's what I mean when I refer to 'balance'.

Sometimes the best test in terms of critique is to ask - If that was mine, would I do anything differently? In this case the answer is 'No'.

When I first started looking at it I wondered if I would have put a bit more structure/definition into the sky. I probably would have tried that, but it would have had to be slight and subtle so as not to pull attention away from the lover 2/3rds of the image. But that, I think, might well have been too much. Leave it as it is.

As others have said in various ways above - It's a good one!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave - I have the radius at its lowest possible in edit #4 below. I increased the "sharpness detail" and I think it helps.

I agree Sam,

Best one yet - for myself and Donald at least.

Cheers, Dave

[Sam W]

I'm getting here a bit late ... and after a whole lot of very good discussion has taken place.

I'll stick to aiming my comments at the version immediately above this post; i.e. edit 4. I do feel that it is the strongest image in terms of the balance of the composition. It 'feels' right to me. I'm sure in terms of composition, others will prefer other versions.

This one works so well for me because I think it best brings out the three primary layers in the image: - a) the land back to the base of the hills; b) the hills and, c) the sky. And then within each of those we have the mist, the line of the hills and the clouds forming secondary layers. All of that, for me, adds up to an image that has all the right things in the right places. That's what I mean when I refer to 'balance'.

Sometimes the best test in terms of critique is to ask - If that was mine, would I do anything differently? In this case the answer is 'No'.

When I first started looking at it I wondered if I would have put a bit more structure/definition into the sky. I probably would have tried that, but it would have had to be slight and subtle so as not to pull attention away from the lover 2/3rds of the image. But that, I think, might well have been too much. Leave it as it is.

As others have said in various ways above - It's a good one!

Hi Donald,

Thank you very much for your detailed evaluation, comments and advise. I have studied your B & W gallery and picked up a few ideas there and applied them in this photo especially as they relate to balance. Therefore, I already had some of your help. I'm sure I will frequent your gallery as I try to produce comparable pieces.

I did ponder adding more structure to the sky as you did. Being a woodworker I see the upper horizontal band of clouds to be similar to interior trim. Interior trim needs to be there but not to the point of overpowering the rest of the room. Probably silly but I thought I share that. Thank you. Best regards - Sam

[Donald]

I did ponder adding more structure to the sky as you did. Being a woodworker I see the upper horizontal band of clouds to be similar to interior trim. Interior trim needs to be there but not to the point of overpowering the rest of the room. Probably silly but I thought I share that. Thank you. Best regards - Sam

Not silly at all. Very sensible in fact. I think we've got to use known reference points/examples to inform our thinking about making pictures. If your thinking about your professional craft then helps your thinking about photography, then that is a strength to build upon.

[IzzieK]

Excellent shot, Sam...I am really late to this posting as I am still trying to keep up with all the posts I missed while life takes over at this time of the year...you know...chrissie cards and food to cook and all that happening soon...

Anyway, I like the last edit best and have learned a lot from your posting through other members' comment here. This is the kind of learning I enjoy most, when members suggests different method of post processing and the way they see an image. Keep it up...I am sharing your learning experience.

[Sam W]

Sam,

I just now downloaded your third edit (purely an arbitrary choice) and I had no trouble bringing out a lot more detail in the area currently displaying haze. I did it by adjusting the curve in that part of the image and by pushing the pixels really hard. In your standalone version of Lightroom, you can't directly manipulate the tone curve except when affecting the entire image. So, try using an Adjustment Brush and making the bright tones substantially brighter and the dark tones substantially darker. I don't use those sliders so I don't know how effectively you'll be able to emulate the direct adjustment of the tone curve, but it might be worth a try.

Mike, Thanks for the suggestion. I tried your method and it works. However, I loose some subtle details in the clouds and also move further away from realism. Currently, I like how the foreground is darker and the distant hills/mountains have some haze and show a lighter shade of gray. For me that helps produce a gradual transition to the much lighter sky. I appreciate the time you spent investigating what I could do with the software I have. Best regards - Sam

[Mike Buckley]

I tried your method and it works. However, I loose some subtle details in the clouds

You shouldn't affect the clouds at all if you use an adjustment brush that doesn't affect the clouds.