Through a veil of fog

[Brownbear]

I'd appreciate some feedback on the following two images especially in regards to the white and black points which I extended in post processing but then pulled back on because I felt that I was losing the true feel/look of the fog. I prefer my post processing in the 1st image but for some reason I can't manage the same with the 2nd image.

Processed in LR, followed by lifting shadows/darkening highlights on the subject and sharpening in photoshop cc. Banding in the foggy sky seen here but not in the full size image, which makes me think that perhaps dodging and burning might be a better approach? I'm also not sure about the changing light.

An ugly old tree that I've photographed once before... Cropped because perhaps I included too much foggy empty sky in the original.

Apocalyptic

SS 1/20 f/8 ISO 100 focal length 22 mm Nikkor 18-200 mm lens

1.



SS 1/15 f/8 ISO 100 Focal length 18 mm Nikkor 18-200 mm lens

2. Weeping Willow



PS I will not likely have time to reply until tomorrow morning. Thank you in advance.

[Shadowman]

The white point in the second image would probably only occur directly below the tree so I'm not sure it really matters for this particular composition. The white point in the first image should be within the submerged branches so it would (white point) have an impact on this particular composition.

[Kaye Leggett]

They are beautiful shots Christina. Like you, I prefer the processing in the first image but I think the content helps. The green in the willow makes processing more difficult and perhaps also the tree needs more room around it...so for my preferences, it's not the processing ?

[Geoff F]

You have managed to get some well focused 'reference points' in the foreground; which I find is vital in making foggy scenes look good, and natural. Without that they can appear just out of focus.

These scenes are clearly shot on a foggy day.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

#1 does work best, it is almost monochromatic - I can almost feel the cold when viewing it in LyteBox.

#2 - I think Kaye has hit the nail on the head, it is too constrained by the crop - or that you couldn't get a wider angle (already at 18mm) - or back up a bit. As it is, the tree is overpowering; it is fully 50% of the image area and yet that isn't (supposed to be) the subject - if it were, why not shoot it in vertical format.

I did also wonder what a version with slightly more, or less, colour would look like (in #2).

After-thought: Even #1 might benefit from a little more space, especially on the left.

Oooops, nearly forgot to say that I agree with your choice of white and black points, they look good/natural to me.

HTH, Dave

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Christina. I like the processing on both as is. On the second image the tree was farther from the camera so it looks as it should because there was more fog between it and the camera than in the first image. I'll be the lone voice to say that I like the second one better for giving a sense of the fog. Nicely done.

[Wandjina]

Great photos Christina. I like the processing even though they might be cropped a little too much. The colours are subtle. I'd like to see a little more of the fog to the right hand side of the tree in #2.
I love the cool icy feel about both photos. The temperature outside here as I write this is nudging 40°C. *laughs*

[Mike Buckley]

I think Christina's issue has more to do with the fact that she is currently struggling with finding a style that she is completely comfortable with. We should all admire her for dealing with such subtle nuances that, frankly, most photographers never consider.

I think both images are fine, though I agree with Kaye that I prefer the first image for her reasons that have nothing to do with post-processing. That's mostly because I personally enjoy the style of the first photo. On the other hand, I can completely understand why Dan prefers the second photograph, especially when taking into account the details of his explanation.

For me, comparing two images that are so different is like asking whether I prefer photos of bears or wine bottles (and you already know the answer to that question without me providing it!). The analogy is apt because I like photos of both subjects but prefer one over the other. The same is true for these two photos; I like them both a lot but prefer one over the other for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the competency of making them.

[JBW]

I think the two shots are very different and trying to make them look similar might be a mistake?

More importantly I know you have improved dramatically. Well done.

[Dave A]

I like #1 very much, nicely done.

Dave

[Wavelength]

#1 is really superb....in the second image a tuft of green is defying the fog and makes it less "foggy" ...and you could have zoomed out a bit more keep a space in between the tree and the border of the image... even then this is a fine image

[Polar01]

Two very good images, I like them both very much, both have a large amount of fog however you can not really compare the processing as both will need something different to bring out your vision. In image #2 I see only really 2 changes, first the Willow tree it needs to breeze on the right hand side and the top where the branches do exit the image. Adding some space here will help to balance the image, remember this is the reverse to most images in that it is very light so, dark objects will catch our eyes and lead them to the point of interest however that will also lead them out of the image in this case. So maybe a slightly different crop to let the Willow be surrounded by the fog. Now everyone loves the dehaze slider to get rid of fog, how about adding a little haze, maybe move it to say -6 to help soften it. Just one last item I do not how if you did or not, to me this is an image that should not be sharpened, why, it is fog we can't see sharply in fog anyways.
Just my thoughts on what may possibly help.

Cheers: Allan

[ScoutR]

Love them both Christina, but the willow is my favourite although like you I'm thinking it needs something. What do you think of this. I'm pretty rusty, so no offence taken if I'm way off base and you would like me to remove this. Hope this works, I have not posted anything for a long time.


[IMG][/IMG]

[Brownbear]

A great BIG thank you to all. As always great tips and advice that is exceptionally helpful.

John - great tip, thank you...

The white point in the second image would probably only occur directly below the tree so I'm not sure it really matters for this particular composition. The white point in the first image should be within the submerged branches so it would (white point) have an impact on this particular composition.

Kaye

Indeed, I agree. To the right are a path and high-rises that I didn't wish to include in the scene. On the next foggy morning I know of another weeping willow tree which I plan to visit for another try.

The green in the willow makes processing more difficult and perhaps also the tree needs more room around it...so for my preferences, it's not the processing ?

Geoff

As always, appreciated and great to hear that you feel that I've kept the foggy feel.

You have managed to get some well focused 'reference points' in the foreground; which I find is vital in making foggy scenes look good, and natural. Without that they can appear just out of focus.

These scenes are clearly shot on a foggy day.

Dave

As always, thank you. Great to hear about the white and black points. I tried a vertical shot of this same willow on another day with my wide angle and still couldn't fit the tree in. On this day I didn't bring that lens but agree it needs more space on the right but didn't wish to include the highrises. I have another of the first image with more space on the left and will post. I tried more colourful but the sky ends up being blue on one side and orange on the other side, and I can't manage a black and white that I like even though I can see a b&w in my head.

Hi Christina,

#1 does work best, it is almost monochromatic - I can almost feel the cold when viewing it in LyteBox.

#2 - I think Kaye has hit the nail on the head, it is too constrained by the crop - or that you couldn't get a wider angle (already at 18mm) - or back up a bit. As it is, the tree is overpowering; it is fully 50% of the image area and yet that isn't (supposed to be) the subject - if it were, why not shoot it in vertical format.

I did also wonder what a version with slightly more, or less, colour would look like (in #2).

After-thought: Even #1 might benefit from a little more space, especially on the left.

Oooops, nearly forgot to say that I agree with your choice of white and black points, they look good/natural to me.

HTH, Dave

Dan

Thank you. Post processing like as is, very encouraging to hear. It's a beautiful tree but a bit to big for my vision.

Hey, Christina. I like the processing on both as is. On the second image the tree was farther from the camera so it looks as it should because there was more fog between it and the camera than in the first image. I'll be the lone voice to say that I like the second one better for giving a sense of the fog. Nicely done.

Martin

Thank you for taking the time. I do like subtle colours. The willow is not cropped but I don't care for the scenery to the right of the tree. I'm going to find another willow and try again. Foggy weather is very cold, numbs the fingers but easier to bear than 40C, temperatures I've experienced and somehow survived.

Great photos Christina. I like the processing even though they might be cropped a little too much. The colours are subtle. I'd like to see a little more of the fog to the right hand side of the tree in #2.
I love the cool icy feel about both photos. The temperature outside here as I write this is nudging 40°C. *laughs*

Mike

As always, thank you for understanding and advising. Ideally there should be some similarity between my birds and my landscapes.

I think Christina's issue has more to do with the fact that she is currently struggling with finding a style that she is completely comfortable with.

Brian

Thank you. Truly appreciated. Perhaps but ideally I'd like to have something similar even if it is just soft colours but of course I also like bright colours depending on the subject.

I think the two shots are very different and trying to make them look similar might be a mistake?

Dave
Thank you.

I like #1 very much, nicely done.

Dave

Nandakumar
Thank you. It's a super sized tree.

#1 is really superb....in the second image a tuft of green is defying the fog and makes it less "foggy" ...and you could have zoomed out a bit more keep a space in between the tree and the border of the image... even then this is a fine image

Allan

Thank you, as always. You've taught me something new. I will be posting a new image with a wee bit more space on the right that I changed to high key to eliminate part of the view on the right. I couldn't do it well because it is beyond my skills to select and blend among the branches of the tree but gave it a try. I will also post an un-sharpened and de-hazed version of the willow which I do like.

Two very good images, I like them both very much, both have a large amount of fog however you can not really compare the processing as both will need something different to bring out your vision. In image #2 I see only really 2 changes, first the Willow tree it needs to breeze on the right hand side and the top where the branches do exit the image. Adding some space here will help to balance the image, remember this is the reverse to most images in that it is very light so, dark objects will catch our eyes and lead them to the point of interest however that will also lead them out of the image in this case. So maybe a slightly different crop to let the Willow be surrounded by the fog. Now everyone loves the dehaze slider to get rid of fog, how about adding a little haze, maybe move it to say -6 to help soften it. Just one last item I do not how if you did or not, to me this is an image that should not be sharpened, why, it is fog we can't see sharply in fog anyways.
Just my thoughts on what may possibly help.

Cheers: Allan

Wendy...

Thank you, kindly. I love your edit! When you have time please let me know how you did this.

Love them both Christina, but the willow is my favourite although like you I'm thinking it needs something. What do you think of this. I'm pretty rusty, so no offense taken if I'm way off base and you would like me to remove this. Hope this works, I have not posted anything for a long time.

[IMG][/IMG]

Thank you, to all! Posting edits in a new box because this is too, long.

[Brownbear]

Following are some attempts at the suggestions...

1A
Another shot of the same tree but photographed with more space included on the left. Processed differently because I couldn't open Lightroom this morning (Photoshop CC used and of course I couldn't remember how I processed the other)



2A Original Weeping Willow (removed sharpening and de-hazed -6 as per Allan's suggestion)



Thank you to all.

[ScoutR]

Christina: Here are the lightroom settings for my edit. I also used 2 adjustment brushes. 1 to darken the water by the tree and the grass to the right of the tree, and then a different brush (not as dark) to bring back the shadow or outline of the shoreline to the left of the tree and the shadow on the ice left front.

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

[Brownbear]

Thank you, kindly. At one point in time I did play with the saturation and luminance of the yellows and greens so your screen shot is helpful to see. Also darkening the water/shadow truly makes a difference.

I will revisit this image at a later date and give it another try.

Truly appreciated.

Christina: Here are the lightroom settings for my edit. I also used 2 adjustment brushes. 1 to darken the water by the tree and the grass to the right of the tree, and then a different brush (not as dark) to bring back the shadow or outline of the shoreline to the left of the tree and the shadow on the ice left front.

[IzzieK]

Christina...sorry to be late here as usual. I have not read much in way of other's responses but looked at the edits. I think you are pushing yourself too much on #2 which is actually my preference here between the two. Your original one does not really need more editing as in my opinion, it loses the drama of the foggy atmosphere. In your last edit you removed the bottom bit which I think is part of the environment bit there and really, in my mind, adds to the image which I think balances it. Or maybe I just like water, cold or warm or whatnots...I still prefer the original shot....

[Donald]

I'd appreciate some feedback on the following two images especially in regards to the white and black points which I extended in post processing but then pulled back on because I felt that I was losing the true feel/look of the fog.

I know that there are those who say that you must have blacks and whites in an image and that you need to adjust those points to make sure that is so. But fog, by its very nature, creates low contrast scenes. Whether with or without fog, I firmly believe there are times when low contrast, built around the midtones in a scene, is what an image needs. That is whether it's a B & W or Colour picture.

Have a look at the work of Paul Strand. He was one of those who, for most of his career and in the words of Michael Freeman, "dwelled much more on the grays, from dark gray to light-gray." (Michael Freeman, 'The Complete Guide to Black & White Digital Photography', ILEX, 2009).

So, if you have a histogram that doesn't extend to either end of the scale, there is not necessarily any need to panic. It might be better that way.

... and perhaps also the tree needs more room around it...

#2 - I think Kaye has hit the nail on the head, it is too constrained by the crop - or that you couldn't get a wider angle (already at 18mm) - or back up a bit. As it is, the tree is overpowering; it is fully 50% of the image area and yet that isn't (supposed to be) the subject - if it were, why not shoot it in vertical format.

That would be my thought as well.

I think you'll be aware that I often have vast expanses of sky with something or other occupying only the bottom portion of the frame. Some people, including on here, don't particularly like that style of picture. I think it's about building up the confidence to feel you know what picture is right for that kind of treatment; i.e. to give plenty of air around the subject.

[Brownbear]

Izzie...

Thank you for sharing. Good for me to hear and truly appreciated. FYI I like the colours in Wendy's version.

I think you are pushing yourself too much on #2 which is actually my preference here between the two. Your original one does not really need more editing as in my opinion, it loses the drama of the foggy atmosphere...

Donald...

Thank you kindly for advising. Truly appreciated. I have a vision of that tree which includes a lot more empty space but I just can't fit it in so I'm going to find another willow somewhere on foggy day. I took a lot of images on this day so I will take a look at the work of Paul Strand (thank you), and review my images and post processing with a mind to process to my personal preference.

I know that there are those who say that you must have blacks and whites in an image and that you need to adjust those points to make sure that is so. But fog, by its very nature, creates low contrast scenes. Whether with or without fog, I firmly believe there are times when low contrast, built around the midtones in a scene, is what an image needs. That is whether it's a B & W or Colour picture.

Thank you to all...