2016 Project 52, 2nd quarter by Judith Noble (Urbanflyer) C & C desired always

[Urbanflyer]

Week 15--Central Valley Sky

I am continuing to improve my understanding and ability to use the power of Photoshop post processing. I have benefited greatly by comments received during the first quarter and hope you all will continue to share your honest critique and your experience with me.

This photo was taken from a moving car--certainly not ideal for good photography but a situation that is common for me as we do month-long road trips twice each year.

Original photo



After Post Processing




I applied a slight blur to combat the graininess of the original photo. I am not happy but don't know if there is anything else I can do to improve what was a grab shot using a cell phone to start with. For me this is all learning and I make no assertion that using a cell phone is a great idea. My Nikon was out of reach and the sky was luscious!

[Shadowman]

Interesting shot, I prefer the first composition and the editing of the second.

[Geoff F]

Yes, to me the crop is a little too much. Maybe take just a fraction off the bottom but leave the peaks. Reduce the valley distance by around half?

What happens if you slightly darken the shadows? There isn't much detail there so I wouldn't worry about going a little darker. But keep the highlights clear.

However, the peaks are a little soft so that will always be a restraining factor on any edits. Your current edit actually seems to accentuate the softness.

Alternatively try one of the painting effects?

[IzzieK]

As with John, I prefer the original shot because of the "smoking" mountains. Perhaps you can work on your clouds using effects in Nik's Colour Efex? Just a thought.

[Urbanflyer]

Thanks Izzie, Geoff and John. I have done another version based on your comments. Geoff, I tried some of the painterly effects available to me but none so far feel right to me. It is a path worth playing with though. Thanks for the thought.

[Geoff F]

That is the crop which I was thinking about.

[IzzieK]

Excellent version, Judith...

[Urbanflyer]

thank you!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Judith,

That third version (in post #5) is much better.

Cheers, Dave

[Urbanflyer]

Week 16--Early glimpse of Death Valley

This one needed a lot of work. So it was perfect for my 52 week project of learning more about post processing. Here is the original--



Image after Post processing

[Geoff F]

For my tastes, you have overdone the contrast with your editing; and the sharpening seems a bit strong as well.

When faced with a scene like this I prefer to do some subtle editing which is selectively applied using a layer and mask.

[IzzieK]

I prefer the original one between the two, Judith. I particularly love the cloud formation there, the textures of the rocks and the layering and it already has enough information not to do an edit, but like you, I will be tempted to do an edit too though I might want to bring out the texture of the clouds subtly instead. The whole edit is a little bit too much to take in -- even the clouds is over-textured. Sorry.

[Urbanflyer]

I prefer the original one between the two, Judith. I particularly love the cloud formation there, the textures of the rocks and the layering and it already has enough information not to do an edit, but like you, I will be tempted to do an edit too though I might want to bring out the texture of the clouds subtly instead. The whole edit is a little bit too much to take in -- even the clouds is over-textured. Sorry.

no need for sorry---This photo was taken with a cell phone in the early evening. What apparently appear as clouds are the mountains on the far side of the valley. I was experimenting with what one might do with a cell phone picture to make it work better. The comments I have gotten on this one suggest it is over sharpened though no sharpening was done. I, too, saw that aspect of the photo and applied a small gausian blur-- I agree, though, that it has that appearance. I am curious about that. Thanks for your comment!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Judith,

I and others would find it helpful you told us with each week's picture; what the source was (e.g. mobile phone), any special issues (e.g. through window from moving vehicle), what PP software you are using, what you have done to arrive at the PP'd version and whether the application of certain things are global or local to specific areas in the image.

As an example, I also thought you had over sharpened this in PP, but now you tell us it is a mobile phone picture and when I study the original closely, I can (now) see that the sharpening had been done to the in-phone jpg and it is just your contrast enhancement that has made it far more visible.

With regard to local vs global adjustments; what you achieved on the far side of the lake is a success, everything over that side is better. If you have the means to exclude this side of the lake and the water from those adjustments, we'd have the best of both worlds.

If your current image editor cannot do localised adjustments, then now is the time to get a better one.
I went through this same realisation myself a few years back.

That said, I just peeked at the EXIF on last week's image and it shows "Photoshop CC", so you have no excuses
(I assume) you just need to learn how to drive it, but I suggest you pick one aspect at a time, or it can be overwhelming.
There's nothing like seeing it done, I signed up with Lynda.com, which means I get good quality videos which I can use as and when I need them, presented in a consistent manner - if you stick with one expert whose style of presentation you like. The disadvantage of YouTube when you're starting out is that it can be a minefield of bad and/or contradictory videos if you switch around - although even there, among the free content, there are some jewels too.

HTH, Dave

[Urbanflyer]

Dave--I shall do as you suggest about including additional information in my post. I am fairly conversant with localized adjustments in Photoshop CC. Not so conversant with what happens in a cell phone. I ran an experiment taking a variety of photos with my cell phone on our fall trip. I appreciate your mentioning an in-phone sharpening component. I will work to understand that. My own conclusions about my cell phone experiment makes me go back to my trusty Nikons for our upcoming trip.

What you refer to as a lake is actually the desert of Death Valley and what Izzie saw as clouds were the mountains on the far side of the valley. That really demonstrates to me the need to stick with my Nikon!

I really appreciate the comments I have gotten here in CIC and hope I have contributed some useful comments as well.

[Dave Humphries]

What you refer to as a lake is actually the desert of Death Valley and what Izzie saw as clouds were the mountains on the far side of the valley.

So, we both need new glasses

That really demonstrates to me the need to stick with my Nikon!

Yup, afterall, if cellphone cameras were that good, everyone would be using them .... oh, hang on

Cheers, Dave

[Urbanflyer]

I think this does look better. I find I tend to increase saturation too much. Will need to work on that.

[IzzieK]

Looks better, Judith. Now I understand how your image looks like. Maybe you can do selective saturation instead of global saturation, if you know what I mean...the texture of your mountain on the right side looks more like citrine if not for that pine on the lower right.

[joebranko]

Great work! Capturing the mountains was really well done!

[Urbanflyer]

Great work! Capturing the mountains was really well done!

Thanks!