Peaceful, quiet, calm and relaxing . . . . .

[Kathy O]

In some ways what John wrote was at the back of my mind; you had complained about soft images, albeit not with the lens you shot this image with. I was trying to demonstrate that the choices you made in post have more to do with the softness of the image than the camera lens. I processed the image to give it the sharpness and pop you seemed to imply you were looking for.


You can't get a sharp image at the same time you are looking for softness; they are effectively opposites that one trades off in post-processing the image. Generally more contrast improves an image and to soften the shot, you are decreasing contrast

That being said, there are a few technical issue with the image that need to be corrected. Blacks should look black and not dark gray, whites should look white, and not light gray (assuming there are black values and white values in the image). Once these are set correctly set, you can play with contrast, shadow, highlights to get the image looking the way you want. It's also important to not blow out highlights (which you have done in the clouds) and shadow detail (which are fine in your image). Regardless of how you want the image to look in the end a properly exposed image is important.

Lightroom does not make it easy to do this as you have to play around with a number of different sliders to get the image to look right.

I can see why I may come off as confusing I think most of the time we strive for that tack sharp photo, that photo . . . that photo that makes you fell like you could climb into and be a part of it . . . and then there are other times where a little softness sets a mood and I think this the case in this photo. I do have copies of this photo or one similar to it where it is a sharper image -- it just didn't speak to me like the softer more subtle one. Thank you so much for all your advice and help.

[Mike Buckley]

Listen to the Silence of Nature and Hear Your Inner Voice . . .

Check the histograms Mike.

Manfred,

Histograms are great to a point but that don't tell us everything. As an example, a histogram won't indicate anything about what Kathy has explained she is trying to express unless she has determined through experience over time that a particular histogram typically correlates with what she is trying to express. Even in that situation, only she can determine the histogram that is appropriate because only she knows what she is trying to express.

[Mike Buckley]

there are other times where a little softness sets a mood

You might (or might not) enjoy the 19th-century portrait photography of Julia Margaret Cameron. Her images are much softer than the images of most of her contemporaries. Similarly, you might enjoy the soft landscape photography of the early 20th century Pictorialists that Ansel Adams and his Group f/64 rebelled against partly by making sharp images from foreground to background.

It's all a matter of personal taste and only you can decide your taste.

[IzzieK]

Kathy I like your photo but I prefer the edit and explanation of Manfred...

[Sam W]

Kathy, I like your photo too and I think this setting is a good candidate for "softness"; for me, the brightness of the sky detracts from the scene. It was the first thing that caught my eye.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Histograms are great to a point but that don't tell us everything. As an example, a histogram won't indicate anything about what Kathy has explained she is trying to express unless she has determined through experience over time that a particular histogram typically correlates with what she is trying to express. Even in that situation, only she can determine the histogram that is appropriate because only she knows what she is trying to express.

What histograms do show us it the range of values across the image. If I see the histogram has values of 255, we know we have blown highlights, and with perhaps the exception of specular highlights, this is generally not something we want in images. The inverse of this problem is black values of 0; which in my view is not quite as much of an issue, so long as there aren't too many of them.

When I look at an image that has whites, but the histogram shows grays, to me this is a problem. For some strange reason I have always thought (and have been taught), whites should actually look white. The same at the other side of the histogram; we see things that should be black, but we see grays instead. This too is a problem, because to my little mind (and again this is consistent with what I was taught), blacks should look black.

One of the problems I've always had with Lightroom is that setting the black point and white point is relatively easy, but changing the mid-point (gamma) value in not intuitive. This adjustment is far easier in Photoshop, with the levels adjustment.

If I work in either Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw (the user interface with these two pieces of software are different, but the underlying engine is identical), I can follow these rules and get an image that is quite similar to Kathy's (softness), but am able to preserve some of the details that are lost in her image (mostly where the trees and sky meet and to a lesser extent in the water).

My re-edit




Kathy's original edit




If you open these two images in Lightbox and use the back / forward keys you can see the differences in the edits, and they are quite subtle.

[Manfred M]

I can see why I may come off as confusing I think most of the time we strive for that tack sharp photo, that photo . . . that photo that makes you fell like you could climb into and be a part of it . . . and then there are other times where a little softness sets a mood and I think this the case in this photo. I do have copies of this photo or one similar to it where it is a sharper image -- it just didn't speak to me like the softer more subtle one. Thank you so much for all your advice and help.

Agreed Kathy - to me the issue is how we get there, not just the end effect. If executed correctly, your will protect some of the subtle detail in the original image and if not you will lose some of it.

[Clactonian]

An interesting debate on a fine image. I'm going to side with Kathy here (no offence Manfred, and accepting that your tweaks are very subtle and your knowledge unquestionable), but I see nothing wrong, in general, with a soft and subtle image or one that may not be technically perfect, if visually it represents both the look and feel the photographer is after.
I find I am now, in many instances, tiring of the quite clinical digital images that we can achieve so readily. Looking through my own catalogue I am appalled at some, what I see now as, over-edited images. I'm hoping that my latest acquisition of two lenses of 'classic' design will help me in my quest to produce less digital looking images out of camera. And yes I know I can always go back to film!!
Mike B is obviously right when he says that it is all a matter of personal taste, so maybe it would be helpful when posting images expecting critique that we clearly state our aims.

[Mike Buckley]

tiring of the quite clinical digital images that we can achieve so readily.

For me, going to museums to view prints made by photographers widely recognized as being master photographers makes me realize how the so-called technically perfect images so often posted in photography forums give such little leeway for creativity including the creativity that exists beyond the left and right sides of a histogram. The creativity I regularly see in museums would likely be highly criticized here and at other photo forums for their lack of detail, blown highlights, blown shadows, poor composition and the like. I suspect that explains why photo forums tend to be highly populated by the people such as myself who generally strive for the traditional rather than untraditional approaches to photography.

I'm extremely fortunate that I live in an area with lots of free museums and I appreciate that not everyone has museums readily available, much less free museums.

[Clactonian]

For me, going to museums to view prints made by photographers widely recognized as being master photographers makes me realize how the so-called technically perfect images so often posted in photography forums give such little leeway for creativity including the creativity that exists beyond the left and right sides of a histogram. The creativity I regularly see in museums would likely be highly criticized here and at other photo forums for their lack of detail, blown highlights, blown shadows, poor composition and the like. I suspect that explains why photo forums tend to be highly populated by the people such as myself who generally strive for the traditional rather than untraditional approaches to photography.

Maybe that's why I also tire of forums populated by those that 'just don't get it'. (Note that I'm still here!!)
I also find quite a conflict between the images that I like and produce for myself and those that are created for camera club competitions where the judges are quick to spot all the failings that you highlight Mike, but that's an issue for another thread, not Kathy's.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kathy I like both edits as they have different moods. Compositionally I prefer Manfred's crop.

[Kathy O]

What histograms do show us it the range of values across the image. If I see the histogram has values of 255, we know we have blown highlights, and with perhaps the exception of specular highlights, this is generally not something we want in images. The inverse of this problem is black values of 0; which in my view is not quite as much of an issue, so long as there aren't too many of them.

When I look at an image that has whites, but the histogram shows grays, to me this is a problem. For some strange reason I have always thought (and have been taught), whites should actually look white. The same at the other side of the histogram; we see things that should be black, but we see grays instead. This too is a problem, because to my little mind (and again this is consistent with what I was taught), blacks should look black.

One of the problems I've always had with Lightroom is that setting the black point and white point is relatively easy, but changing the mid-point (gamma) value in not intuitive. This adjustment is far easier in Photoshop, with the levels adjustment.

If I work in either Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw (the user interface with these two pieces of software are different, but the underlying engine is identical), I can follow these rules and get an image that is quite similar to Kathy's (softness), but am able to preserve some of the details that are lost in her image (mostly where the trees and sky meet and to a lesser extent in the water).

My re-edit




Kathy's original edit




If you open these two images in Lightbox and use the back / forward keys you can see the differences in the edits, and they are quite subtle.

Manfred, I do like your re-edit much better than your first edit. I don't think we could go wrong with either one of these edits. Thank you for all you help .

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I do like your re-edit much better than your first edit. I don't think we could go wrong with either one of these edits. Thank you for all you help .

I did this to demonstrate that the technique I strongly recommend can give you the type of result you are looking for. Having the "proper" end points that ensure a full dynamic range doesn't restrict your creativity.