2016 Project 52, 3rd quarter by Judith Noble (Urbanflyer) C & C desired always

[Urbanflyer]

Week 31--Message from a tree

I continue exploring the clarity slider in Photoshop CC. This week I chose an old photo of tree bark to see where I could take it with this tool. I ended up using significant negative clarity (along with a few other adjustments) to create an abstract that I liked. Reminds me a bit of the effect available through encaustic.

Original image



Abstract result from post processing



C & C always welcome.

[joebranko]

Week 31--Message from a tree

I continue exploring the clarity slider in Photoshop CC. This week I chose an old photo of tree bark to see where I could take it with this tool. I ended up using significant negative clarity (along with a few other adjustments) to create an abstract that I liked. Reminds me a bit of the effect available through encaustic.

Original image



Abstract result from post processing



C & C always welcome.

I haven't tried negative clarity, but I have experienced it in early lectures on thermodynamics when I first started my engineering studies! 😕

[Urbanflyer]

Week 32--Postcard from Hardin

A change of pace in subject matter--not my usual choice. Thought I would play with clarity and a few other new found skills to see what I could do with this architectural image to give it a personality. C & C always welcome.

original image


image after post processing

[Wavelength]

Would you kindly point of out the differences made? as such to looks nice too...

[Urbanflyer]

Would you kindly point of out the differences made? as such to looks nice too...

corrected perspective distortion, cropped foreground, brightened (dodged) doors/windows on left side, modest increase in clarity in sky and on building. Greater increase in clarity on "Hotel Becker" and top of tower. And added postcard style labeling.

You are right that the differences are subtle.

[Wavelength]

I checked all the things you mentioned and definitely each of them were valid, i feel; well done, Judith

[IzzieK]

I am liking the path you are going through your experiments. I had seen the changes right away but I seem to think that the original one is more true to the perspective than the edit even though the edit is more pronounced/sharper...My mind's eyes sees the edit as the building is wider on top than the bottom? It is subtle but I still noticed it...tried to look several times...must be optical illusion...

[Shadowman]

Nice shot and edit.

[Urbanflyer]

I am liking the path you are going through your experiments. I had seen the changes right away but I seem to think that the original one is more true to the perspective than the edit even though the edit is more pronounced/sharper...My mind's eyes sees the edit as the building is wider on top than the bottom? It is subtle but I still noticed it...tried to look several times...must be optical illusion...

I think you are right, Izzy. I need to see what I can do about that--good exercise!

[joebranko]

The edited shot is noticeably sharper and the perspective better. Well done Judith!

[Urbanflyer]

thanks, Joe!

[Urbanflyer]

Izzie, I tried working with the perspective warp tool and I think it is pretty good. This is the original photo with no post processing except for trying to work with the perspective. What do you think?

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Judith,

Izzie asked me if I could reply to this as she's got her hands full this week, so here goes...

The first processed version, in post #43 definitely looked 'over corrected' for perspective to me, while the 'original' was in need of correction.

This one is much better; while you have not quite corrected all the leaning in (at the top), it is better to leave a slight 'lean in', certainly much better than a 'lean out'.

That said, perhaps your use of perspective warp has actually created another problem; when I compare the 'verticalness' of the nearest corners of the hotel, they now look to be leaning to the left (and that wasn't the case before).

If I am correcting perspective manually, which I do when I feel the automatics haven't done it to my satisfaction (about half the time), here's how I approach it.

In ACR in PS CC (which you have), I go to the Lens Corrections panel and ensure that Lens Profile corrections are ON, this should deal with any curvature introduced by barrel/pin cushioning in the lens at the focal length used.

Then turn on the grid overlay and use the slider to set it to a helpful size.

In this picture (at 100% zoom), I'd check both sides of the front edges of the grey/gray section (and/or door frame) to ensure that any (tiny) leaning in is equal on both sides, if it wasn't, I'd rotate the whole image to make it so.
Alternatively, I'd compare the right hand edge of the building to grid, along with a 'vertical' image element the same distance in from LHS, and average those leans to set rotation.

Only after I'm sure the image is level*, would I start to look at using the controls to correct the leaning in of the verticals, again, I think you should do this based on verticals that are equidistant from the centre of the image, but if the rotation is accurate, it may not matter and the control, should give the same answer.

* note that I didn't use a horizontal edge to do this because you weren't 'square on' to any part of the building when you shot.

Note also that this building is fairly likely, due to its architecture and age, not to be tilting in reality.

If age and/or architectural features and/or shooting angle deny us a vertical edges to judge things, the all you can do is use common sense, based on the order of correction processing I have outlined. If you don't, the yes, sometimes using the warp tool (in PS itself) is the only way, but it can 'bite', so I am now very wary of using it when a more structured correction method (forgive the unintended pun) can yield better results.

Hope that helps, Dave

PS
Disclaimer: I wrote the above mostly from memory and I have not used this method in the latest CC 2015.5, but I hope it is still valid. I have not loaded this image in to PS CC, or used an overlay grid, I have just compared building edges to my screen edges, so please bear that in mind.

My approach to perspective problems has varied over the years, what I have outlined above is where I'm currently at and what I believe to be the best method (at the moment), but if anyone has a better method, let's hear it.

These days, I take extra care at capture to get the camera level (left/right) and also (when possible) shoot wide to keep the camera as level as possible (lens up/down), then crop out the wasted pixels in the foreground in PP.
In the extreme; I'll frame (after focusing) to place the centre focus point at a point on the subject building which is at the same height as the camera lens, taking account of any difference in ground height between where I am standing and the building. I shoot mostly hand held, so do this by eye, but if I were using a tripod, then a spirit level on that may help in getting the camera level on both axes (e.g. left/right and lens up/down).

[Urbanflyer]

Dave and Izzie,

Thanks very much. Dave, your explanation is greatly appreciated. Guess I will look for some other instances in my library to work on until I get this down. Mostly I don't photograph buildings and probably don't notice perspective issues in geology!

[Urbanflyer]

Week 33--The Road Ahead

photographed from a moving car--Thank goodness for the spot healing brush--lots of bugs on the windshield! Continue to explore the clarity slider--this time using a localized adjustment with the brush.

Original photo



After Post Processing

[bnnrcn]

Your crop has made a huge difference Judith.Lovely clouds that look like cotton balls

[Urbanflyer]

Thanks. Binnur. When I photo from a moving car I am always looking at potential, knowing I will have to work to bring out what I really saw!

[Urbanflyer]

Just for fun

Photographing from a moving car--watching the scenery fly by

[IzzieK]

Getting good with the clarity slider, Judith. Sorry for disappearing abruptly. I really ran out of time last week...anyway, you are improving with your experiments. Without looking at the second shot, I think I over-analyzed the first one then saw the pleasing scene in #2. By the look of it, you were the passenger in this car, not the driver.

Truth to say, I have not work on the clarity slider at all since I acquired Nik's and with the help of Binnur and others worked out my structure (similar to the clarity slider of Photoshop). I prefer Nik's better...

[Urbanflyer]

Week 34--Nova Scotia tidepool

Continuing to work on nuances in PP

Original shot



final after PP



C & C always welcome