A secret place - C&C welcomed

[KimC]

I haven't been doing much landscape photography lately, but since I visited my favorite, secret place this week, I was inspired. It's a place of total solitude as the general public isn't allowed access.

[bje07]

Nice symmetry.
What bother me are the two square dark brown on the RHS? and if you lighten up a tad?

[Manfred M]

On the surface it looks rather underexposed with a heavy primary yellow colour cast.

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed, looks like a masked intruder.

[KimC]

Thanks for the comment. Not sure what you are referring to Jean -- this is a small piling in front of the bright on the far RHS (and then it's reflection, is that what you means? If so, I would think lightening it would make it stand out more than the rest of that are?

Nice symmetry.
What bother me are the two square dark brown on the RHS? and if you lighten up a tad?

[KimC]

Thanks Manfred for commenting. SOOC, the exposure was ok went the full scope of the histogram. I was experimenting and did darken the exposure in post as I was going after a certain mood. You are correct, I also do have a very light (whitish yellow) gradient on the image for the mood I wanted to create. Is there some way I could have achieved it better?

On the surface it looks rather underexposed with a heavy primary yellow colour cast.

[KimC]

Yes, that face John! Thanks for your comment.

Nicely composed, looks like a masked intruder.

[purplehaze]

Hi Kim,

Looks like a lovely spot. I am wondering, could you achieve the mood you are seeking by applying your gradient to all but the sky and clouds?

[Mike Buckley]

Kim,

Once you've made all the adjustments that in effect lowered the brightness of your white point, re-adjust your white point as the last editing step. You may or may not adjust it to the bright level that was in the original but you might adjust it to something considerably brighter than in this version, depending of course on the mood you want to convey. One of the factors is that the brighter you fine-tune the white point using a Levels tool, the more you also increase the mid-tone contrast, which will be to your liking or not again depending on the mood you choose.

Another method is to increase the overall brightness of the image by adjusting the gamma (dragging the mid point of the tone curve higher). Doing so will brighten most of the tones while leaving the darkest tones unchanged. This results in lowering the mid-tone contrast while increasing the contrast in the dark and bright tones. It also in effect increases the brightness of the white point.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred for commenting. SOOC, the exposure was ok went the full scope of the histogram. I was experimenting and did darken the exposure in post as I was going after a certain mood. You are correct, I also do have a very light (whitish yellow) gradient on the image for the mood I wanted to create. Is there some way I could have achieved it better?

Kim - unless the photographer says otherwise, I assume that the photographer is trying for an image that is close to what he or she is photographing. I tend to have a quick peak the the image's histogram to get a view of the colour / tonal distribution and when I see an image like this one with clouds and icicles and clouds, yet no pure whites, I ask about the exposure. The ACR histogram is not what I would expect to see in a scene like this:





With respect to the yellow colour cast, again, I look at the overall scene and see nothing that tends to suggest that the clouds and the blue of the sky should have those colours.

Knowing your very meticulous approach to your work, I felt you were doing this on purpose, so was looking for an explanation as to what you are trying to achieve.

[KimC]

Janis, Mike, and Manfred, thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll rework this image a little later this week taking into account your comments and re-post it.

Manfred, point taken, next time I'll outline when I'm experimenting. One of my goals this winter was to learn more about PS/Affinity and although there are tutorials to show you how to use the tools, there is zero discussion around good application versus poor (they just say to use your eye and see what you like). So I do understand your point - one question to ask myself is... is it believable?

Hi Kim,

Looks like a lovely spot. I am wondering, could you achieve the mood you are seeking by applying your gradient to all but the sky and clouds?

Kim,

Once you've made all the adjustments that in effect lowered the brightness of your white point, re-adjust your white point as the last editing step. You may or may not adjust it to the bright level that was in the original but you might adjust it to something considerably brighter than in this version, depending of course on the mood you want to convey. One of the factors is that the brighter you fine-tune the white point using a Levels tool, the more you also increase the mid-tone contrast, which will be to your liking or not again depending on the mood you choose.

Another method is to increase the overall brightness of the image by adjusting the gamma (dragging the mid point of the tone curve higher). Doing so will brighten most of the tones while leaving the darkest tones unchanged. This results in lowering the mid-tone contrast while increasing the contrast in the dark and bright tones. It also in effect increases the brightness of the white point.

Kim - unless the photographer says otherwise, I assume that the photographer is trying for an image that is close to what he or she is photographing. I tend to have a quick peak the the image's histogram to get a view of the colour / tonal distribution and when I see an image like this one with clouds and icicles and clouds, yet no pure whites, I ask about the exposure. The ACR histogram is not what I would expect to see in a scene like this:





With respect to the yellow colour cast, again, I look at the overall scene and see nothing that tends to suggest that the clouds and the blue of the sky should have those colours.

Knowing your very meticulous approach to your work, I felt you were doing this on purpose, so was looking for an explanation as to what you are trying to achieve.

[KimC]

Here is the totally reworked image. Started from scratch. I did do a different crop on this - decided to go outside the standard constraints and went unconstrained to something my eye preferred. I reworked this image taking into account the comments received, as well as, my view on this image today. The revised image still meets my vision, but it's less severe (last one had prob a little too much spice ;-)

[skitterbug]

Here is the totally reworked image. Started from scratch. I did do a different crop on this - decided to go outside the standard constraints and went unconstrained to something my eye preferred. I reworked this image taking into account the comments received, as well as, my view on this image today. The revised image still meets my vision, but it's less severe (last one had prob a little too much spice ;-)

Hi Kim ~ I like your secret place. It looks peaceful. I'm not an expert in how photos are supposed to be taken or processed but I do know when I see one I like! I've never been one that wants to present an image of something that it isn't. I want to capture what I see and then try and present it in appropriate exposure, etc. At least that is where I am in my learning process. I give you this info so you understand where I am on the "photo intelligence" bracket. That said - I really like the second reworked presentation. It has the path to the bridge on the left showing me how people would cross over; it has a much more natural look to it. Your photo makes me want to explore the area! Yes, I like this one very much.

[KimC]

I agree with your thoughts about the changes Sandy. Thank you for taking the time to comment - I appreciate it.

Hi Kim ~ I like your secret place. It looks peaceful. I'm not an expert in how photos are supposed to be taken or processed but I do know when I see one I like! I've never been one that wants to present an image of something that it isn't. I want to capture what I see and then try and present it in appropriate exposure, etc. At least that is where I am in my learning process. I give you this info so you understand where I am on the "photo intelligence" bracket. That said - I really like the second reworked presentation. It has the path to the bridge on the left showing me how people would cross over; it has a much more natural look to it. Your photo makes me want to explore the area! Yes, I like this one very much.

[Mike Buckley]

The revised version is a huge improvement for me; I no longer think the image is underexposed the moment I see it.

I think Kim nailed in one of her earlier posts the lesson to be learned: if the image is supposed to be realistic (as opposed to surrealistic), it will be successful only if everything about it appears realistic. When working with landscapes, we need to pay attention not only to the color of the objects in the scene as explained by Manfred but also the overall color of the light relative to the quality of the shadows. As an example, it's not possible to have strongly warm light and soft shadows at the same time using only natural light that is not modified, so we shouldn't digitally add much warmth to a scene that is obviously lit by diffuse light. That example doesn't pertain to Kim's treatment of her scene, though I mention it because it's an issue I occasionally see here at CiC that makes an image appear unrealistic that would otherwise appear realistic.

Kim: Consider cropping just a tad on the left to eliminate at least the middle and upper areas of the very dark tree at that side of the frame. Those dark tones pull my eye out of the frame as I try to figure out that indeed they are the tones of a tree.

[KimC]

Thanks Mike for sharing your views on my revised image, as well as, the additional insights - much appreciated.

Ahhh, good point, I will def fix the crop. Not sure how I missed that -- it's so easy to do after looking at it so much. Why a second set of eyes are appreciated!

The revised version is a huge improvement for me; I no longer think the image is underexposed the moment I see it.

I think Kim nailed in one of her earlier posts the lesson to be learned: if the image is supposed to be realistic (as opposed to surrealistic), it will be successful only if everything about it appears realistic. When working with landscapes, we need to pay attention not only to the color of the objects in the scene as explained by Manfred but also the overall color of the light relative to the quality of the shadows. As an example, it's not possible to have strongly warm light and soft shadows at the same time using only natural light that is not modified, so we shouldn't digitally add much warmth to a scene that is obviously lit by diffuse light. That example doesn't pertain to Kim's treatment of her scene, though I mention it because it's an issue I occasionally see here at CiC that makes an image appear unrealistic that would otherwise appear realistic.

Kim: Consider cropping just a tad on the left to eliminate at least the middle and upper areas of the very dark tree at that side of the frame. Those dark tones pull my eye out of the frame as I try to figure out that indeed they are the tones of a tree.