River Bend - Critique

[Rainforest]

Trev- .. and me envious of your location - both of them! Thank you for your thoughts and comments.

Bruce - A few more edits and I will have to decide - I want to try out some of this advice.

Richard - Some find it dreary here but I like low key better as a description.

Thanks all ;-)

[Urbanflyer]

Trev- .. and me envious of your location - both of them! Thank you for your thoughts and comments.

Bruce - A few more edits and I will have to decide - I want to try out some of this advice.

Richard - Some find it dreary here but I like low key better as a description.

Thanks all ;-)

Welcome--What a beautiful image! I have seen this type of scene many times in Washington and in Oregon. For me, the only changes I would make from your first posting is to open up the shadows on the right hand side just a little to provide increased definition of the trees on that side. When you do that, the green of the forest floor becomes too bright, so desaturating that area brings it back in balance with the rest of the scene.

You will get lots of good advice and then will have to apply your own aesthetic! l look forward to seeing more of your images!

[Manfred M]

Susan - let me slightly disagree with some of the thoughts given by some of the others. In my original posting I did not go one further step and work on the contrast. Let me give you how I analyzed the image and why I wrote what I did.

1. I always look at the histogram of an image when I open it to see what the data looks like. I generally use the luminosity histogram, rather than looking at the individual channels unless I see that there might be clipping in a specific channel.

2. Are there black values in this image? Answer here is obviously yes as I see a lot of shadows. This tells me I need to investigate and potentially reset the black point. Based on what I see here, it is close to where it should be, so no adjustment necessary.

3. Are there white values in this image? Answer here is again obviously yes, as I see a lot of specular highlights in the water and along the bank. Specular highlight are always white and in fact are often blown out / clipped. When I look at the histogram, the significant white values start at around 155 (versus 255 being pure white - these highlights are not even close to being white). This indicates significant underexposure / lack of tonal values in the image, so I would set my white point to around 155). This does two things, it increases brightness and increases contrast as well as giving you a tonal distribution of pure black to pure white.

4. Is the exposure where it should be? Based on your original, I expect that the scene is darker than it is now, so darken it it up by adjusting the midpoint values and leaving the black point and white point where they should be.

5. Contrast - personal taste here, but once the black point, white point and mid point exposure values are where you want them, adjust the contrast to where you want it to be. I would do this in two stages. In the first stage, I would reduce the global contrast and in the second stage I would add microcontrast to give detail definition. I did neither in the example I posted.

[ccphoto]

Somewhere (as they always say, whomever they may be), there is a happy median between all the edits and this might fall into that category. My concern, as I think was also Donald's was the lack of contrast in the middle tones. I used a wide midtones luminosity mask in PS after first doing a small color correction for some odd color casting I found throughout the image.

[Donald]

Donald - Good advice all. I don't mind a bit and this is very much where I would like to aim. Very nice. Are these LR edits? If you want to take the time I would be interested in more precise information about how you applied the edits. I see more contrast and lighter areas as well but I'm not certain how it was applied (LR is still quite new to me). Is that with contrast, clarity, dehaze or the tone curve? Thank you for the kind words and your time Donald..

Susan

For this particular edit, I used Nik's Colour Efex Pro, which is a plug-in to Elements 15.

I don't know how you'd do it in Lightroom (have never used it), but I do not know you'd be able to do exactly the same. I hope someone who does know lightroom will come in and tell us exactly how you can apply LCE with it. There could be a tool/slider called Local Contrast Enhancement or Microcontrast.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

I think the most important thing to remember here is that, as evidenced by the interest and the comments your image is provoking, you have started out with a wonderful image. Don't forget that. What we're all talking about is artistic interpretation ... and take 5 photographers/artists and you'll get 10 different interpretations!

[Manfred M]

I don't know how you'd do it in Lightroom (have never used it), but I do not know you'd be able to do exactly the same.

Susan - if you have installed Google's Nik Collection (free download) for Lightroom, then in the Develop Module, go to the <Photo> tab on the tool bar and from the dropdown menu select <Edit in> and select <Color Efex Pro 2>. I use the Pro Contrast filter in most of my work.

[Rent]

Susan For what it's worth I still prefer the original image. For some people every image has to be manipulated. If you like the photo that's all that matters
Roy

[Manfred M]

Susan For what it's worth I still prefer the original image. For some people every image has to be manipulated. If you like the photo that's all that matters
Roy

Susan has written that the original was edited.

Every image you see is "manipulated" in some way or other, even straight out of camera (SOOC) jpegs with the camera set to the default settings. Cameras capture data that has to be turned into an image and certain decisions have to be made as to how that is to be done. If one uses the default settings, some engineer at the camera maker has made those decisions for you.

In terms of liking an image, that is fine, but CiC is very much a site for people to learn and improve their work, so discussions on PP should be healthy and rigorous. Two of the greatest master photographers from the past that are often looked up by modern photographers; Ansel Adams (landscapes) and Yousef Karsh (portraits) were well known for their use of PP techniques in producing their timeless images.

[Adrian J]

Susan

For this particular edit, I used Nik's Colour Efex Pro, which is a plug-in to Elements 15.

I don't know how you'd do it in Lightroom (have never used it), but I do not know you'd be able to do exactly the same. I hope someone who does know lightroom will come in and tell us exactly how you can apply LCE with it. There could be a tool/slider called Local Contrast Enhancement or Microcontrast.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

I think the most important thing to remember here is that, as evidenced by the interest and the comments your image is provoking, you have started out with a wonderful image. Don't forget that. What we're all talking about is artistic interpretation ... and take 5 photographers/artists and you'll get 10 different interpretations!

I think you'll find that the Clarity slider is what you would use for Microcontrast in LR. You can apply it globally using the Basic develpment slider, locally using the Adjustment Brush or in a graduation from zero to your chosen value across the frame in any direction using the Graduated Filter.

Personally I would try the Adjustment Brush to add some local clarity (LCE) if you think it's needed and you'll also probably benefit from using View > Before / After > Split Screen to compare your edits to the original if you're not doing so already.

Still totally immersed in your original with subdued tones though

[Donald]

For some people every image has to be manipulated.

I think to improve our photography and fully get to grips with what making a image (as opposed to take a snapshot) is about, I always suggest that's it's helpful to try and move away from using terminology such as 'manipulated', which has negative connotations of somehow 'cheating' or 'not being fair'.

As Manfred as indicated, post processing is a part of every picture that exists. In this digital age you have a choice - you can let the camera take charge of it all and do it for you, or you can do it yourself. It's that simple. It's not a case of NOT processing and talking about 'straight out of camera' as if nothing was happening inside the camera. It's about your decision as to how the picture is post-processed: Camera or You.

[Rainforest]

So....I'm still absorbing the discussions. Love it. Manfred your detailed blk,wht, midpoint and contrast points are helpful to me. Thank you again.
I use Color Effects Pro quite a lot but usually Tonal Contrast and a few other favorites. I think Dave Marrow recently did a detailed explanation of Pro Contrast in one of his posts so I will look at that more carefully and learn how to use it.
-Chris your edit is beautiful to me. Thanks for taking the time.
All - Donald, Judith, Roy, Adrian, thanks! for your comments and thoughts. I've certainly enjoyed the discussion. ...When I have more time I will go back at this and post again...looking forward to that.

[bnnrcn]

Hi again Susan, IMO Chris improved your original image by removing the color cast. It seems even more natural now. IMO this is the best alternative edit so far

Somewhere (as they always say, whomever they may be), there is a happy median between all the edits and this might fall into that category. My concern, as I think was also Donald's was the lack of contrast in the middle tones. I used a wide midtones luminosity mask in PS after first doing a small color correction for some odd color casting I found throughout the image.

[Cogito]

Nice image, Susan, BUT it just goes to show you can't please all of the people all of the time! Several "renowned" CinC members have supplied alternatives - and at least, Manfred explained his - any of which may or may not be to your pleasure. So, try adjusting contrast, exposure, clarity, highlights, lowlights, even vignetting until you get the image YOU like.

[jerseyfinn]

Thx for the demo & explanation. In this sort of limited light I guess it's good option to check histograms & err by exposing more to the right.

[Rainforest]

Good advice. It's what YOU see eh? ...and hopefully if all goes well the camera etc. assists.

[Rainforest]

Hi again Susan, IMO Chris improved your original image by removing the color cast. It seems even more natural now. IMO this is the best alternative edit so far

I agree Binnur and I hadn't noticed the color cast issue - I think I even know how to go about correcting it ;-)

[Manfred M]

I think I even know how to go about correcting it ;-)

In Lightroom's develop module, Basic tab; the Temperature and Tint sliders will give you the most control. If the image is too green, slide towards tint slider to the magenta side. If it is too magenta, slide it towards the green. If the image is too blue, slide the temperature slider towards the yellow and if it is too yellow, move it towards the blue. Often a change of 5 or 10 units is all that it takes,

You can also try the various settings on the White Balance pull down menu. Auto is sometimes the only thing you need.

[bnnrcn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfDEkXhXwg

I hope it helps

[ccphoto]

If you work in Photoshop, make a duplicate layer, go to the top menu to "Image" Sub "Adjustments" down to "Match Color" and select the "Neutralize" box... Do this before making any other color adjustments. If you want a bit more of the original, just move the fader slider to the right a bit.

[Rainforest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfDEkXhXwg

I hope it helps

Thank you Binnur. I watched it once and will watch it again ;-)