Algonquin Park

[CatherineA]

I visited Algonquin in September and had hopes for beautiful shots. I didn't get any but I got to practice shooting in manual and this shot was at least in focus. It is a bit dreary though and tonight I experimented with my free trial of Lightroom (the second image). The result looks a little startling. I am wondering if the problem is that original image just can't be helped much or whether another approach at editing would give it at least a boost. I would appreciate hearing any C&C. Thank you for your time.

[Polar01]

Know the spot well, myself I found in late September best, mist burns off about 8:15 best time to get there is about 7:00 am stand around waiting for mist of burn off, have coffee and talk with the others waiting also. As for any C&C, maybe just back it off slightly.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

I actually like the treatment, you were able to maintain some of the mist and enhance the colors within the composition. If possible you might try to back off a bit on the clarity applied to the background, the original blue sky and some mist amongst the background foliage will give the image some degree of aerial perspective, your intensity applied to the background brings the foliage too close and reduces the actual layers present in the composition. Did you use the dehaze tool in your processing?

[CatherineA]

Thank you John. No, didn’t try the dehaze tool but I will. This will be a good image for me to learn a bit about editing and applying gradations too. My mouse is not very sensitive and it has been really difficult to do fine adjustments. At least I am conjecturing that it is the mouse because surely Lightroom isn’t meant to be so fiddly.

[Shadowman]

Thank you John. No, didn’t try the dehaze tool but I will. This will be a good image for me to learn a bit about editing and applying gradations too. My mouse is not very sensitive and it has been really difficult to do fine adjustments. At least I am conjecturing that it is the mouse because surely Lightroom isn’t meant to be so fiddly.

Catherine,

Try the brush tool for fine adjustment, you can direct the changes to specific areas.

[Stagecoach]

The result looks a little startling. I am wondering if the problem is that original image just can't be helped much or whether another approach at editing would give it at least a boost. I would appreciate hearing any C&C. Thank you for your time.

Yes the results do look a bit startling Catherine but I do not believe it is due to the original image.

The original is underexposed and lifting global exposure/brightness a bit is a good start. As the mist plays a significant part in the scene I would try my best to retain it by not doing too much to the far area but accentuate the foreground lifting the shadows, increasing contrast, vibrancy and sharpness to give the image some greater perception of depth.

Cropping to remove the sky makes quite a difference.

[AndrewMcD]

Try zooming to 1:1 when making local adjustments and the mouse work isn't so fiddly.

[JBW]

If you object I'll take it down.

I use Capture One and I made some quick adjustments. Exposure, brightness, clarity, structure and colour balance. This is just one way to process the basically great shot you took.

[CatherineA]

Thank you Grahame. That’s a good approach and I appreciate knowing how you analyze what is needed here. I didn’t know how to break that down. Oddly enough I never considered cropping the sky because I was sure it was a shame that I didn’t have more sky. Have to be more flexible in my thinking.

[CatherineA]

Thank you Brian for taking the time to do this. I like it very much. (And, I didn’t know about Capture One, I’m going to check it out.)

[JBW]

Thank you Brian for taking the time to do this. I like it very much. (And, I didn’t know about Capture One, I’m going to check it out.)

My pleasure. A lot of people took a lot of time with me and I'm just returning the favor. Capture One has excellent web (youtube) support and if you have a problem they have support staff that will guide you through things. If you use Sony cameras it is low priced. If not it runs to US 300. One month free trial. Here's a link

[DanK]

Thank you Brian for taking the time to do this. I like it very much. (And, I didn’t know about Capture One, I’m going to check it out.)

Catherine,

Don't be distracted by Capture One. If you were already learning Capture One, I would say the same about Lightroom. I'm not disparaging the software, which many people like. However, most of what these packages can do overlaps. The differences are generally not major. The issue is learning how to use the tools that they mostly have in common.

instead, at this stage, I suggest you focus on what the different editing procedures do. For example, the suggestions Geoff made can be accomplished in pretty much all editing packages. They can certainly be done in Lightroom, which you are already learning.

I agree with others: the issue is mostly not with the image you took. Under those circumstances, the tonal range in the image will be very limited (look at the histogram), as will contrast. In addition, as Geoff noted, it's underexposed. (Again, look at the histogram.) The combination of these three makes the original image look both dark and drab. The question is how you want to edit this to make it look more like what you want.

I don't know what specifically you did in your edit, but it did seem to increase both tonal range and contrast and brighten the image. I don't think it is bad at all, although it is too extreme for my taste. I prefer it to Brian's, which still has a very limited tonal range (topping out around 185 of 255) and therefore looks dark and drab to me.

I also suggest that to start, you skip local adjustments (the adjustment brush) and the dehaze tool. The adjustment brush simply applies to a limited area a limited subset of the editing controls. To use it well, you first need to understand how those controls work.

My suggestion is that you start with the basics and take it one set at a time. A logical place to start, IMHO, is to learn how to adjust tonality and contrast, which are in many respects the most basic of the adjustments. This is the top panel in the Lightroom develop pane. Your goal should be to learn how each one affects images so that you can say to yourself things like "hmm. This image looks dark and drab. The histogram shows me the reason: it has limited tonal range and is scrunched to the left. I want to brighten it, increase the tonal range, and boost contrast more than the increased tonal range will do. So I should probably try X and Y to try to make those changes." Once you have learned how the tonality sliders (e.g., "shadows") and the curves tool affect the image, it will be time to move on. For step two, I would pick sharpening and clarity. I would place vibrance and saturation third in the queue.

There are lots of online postings and videos explaining how these work.

My experience is that it frustrates novices and isn't very helpful to try to think about the totality of edits for an image. That isn't to say that you should try lots of things with individual images. But for purposes of learning, focus on one set at a time.

I had an interesting experience along these lines not long ago with a friend who is still relatively new to photography, although further along than you are. At one point, he made clear that he wasn't really able to plan his edits because he didn't understand how tonality adjustments really work. So, he and I sat down with one very drab image and worked through the adjustments, one by one. In each case, we both looked at the changes in the image and discussed what was happening in terms of the histogram. At the end, his comment was that for the first time, he understood what he was actually doing with the tools and was able to use them accordingly. This is what I am suggesting for you. If you try to bite off everything at once, that's hard to accomplish.

Dan

[CatherineA]

This is a great road map for me Dan, thank you very much. I know so little about editing that I couldn't see how to start.

I knew that the photo was underexposed when I took it but when I took another photo with a better histogram distribution I disliked the colours. Of the two, I prefer the underexposed version. Either I should have tried to get a properly exposed photo and done editing on it or, the reason the underexposed one looks better is that it has less white on the histogram. Thank you so much for telling me about watching the histogram change as tonality and contrast adjustments are made! It's invaluable advice and it was really kind of you to write all that out.

[Stagecoach]

I knew that the photo was underexposed when I took it but when I took another photo with a better histogram distribution I disliked the colours. Of the two, I prefer the underexposed version. Either I should have tried to get a properly exposed photo and done editing on it or, the reason the underexposed one looks better is that it has less white on the histogram.

Catherine, if your reference to comparing the histograms is with respect to the two images you have posted (post 1 orig and post 13 above) the distribution and amount of whites (light tones) will vary a lot due to the difference of sky area included.

[CatherineA]

Hi Grahame, I better look up some basic info on reading histograms and then practice getting good at unpacking their info. I thought that the photo in post 13 had a better histogram because it wasn't scrunched to the left. (I know that sometimes that is called for but perhaps not in a typical landscape.) But if the histogram is shifted to the right because there is more white, and not because of tonality or contrast or any other good reason, then nothing was gained.

But if I have misinterpreted what you said, please don't despair! Your efforts aren't for nought! I will learn and you have given me ideas and terms that I will investigate. Thank you

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame, I better look up some basic info on reading histograms and then practice getting good at unpacking their info. I thought that the photo in post 13 had a better histogram because it wasn't scrunched to the left. (I know that sometimes that is called for but perhaps not in a typical landscape.) But if the histogram is shifted to the right because there is more white, and not because of tonality or contrast or any other good reason, then nothing was gained.

But if I have misinterpreted what you said, please don't despair! Your efforts aren't for nought! I will learn and you have given me ideas and terms that I will investigate. Thank you

Catherine,

No I don't think you have misinterpreted what I said and I suspect you understand histograms

What I was trying to say is beware when comparing histograms that the content of the scene will make a difference to their shape, and also, the camera exposure will make a difference to the "shapes" position along the horizontal axis of the histogram graph.

Looking at the two images;

1. Post 1 original (underexposed)

The histogram shows the image is underexposed but the blacks are not clipping. The drawback to this is that should you want to lift (brighten) the dark shadow areas later in post processing that action will be more susceptible to producing noise in those areas. It's generally safer to lower bright areas in PP than brighten dark shadow areas, more so with small sensor cameras, just another one of those things to think about at the time of shooting.

2. Post 13

This has a well placed histogram and gives a better overall scope for PP work.

[CatherineA]

Thank you Grahame! I didn't know these pp implications with respect to exposure. Next time I'm feeling mopey about a landscape I won't underexpose to capture my mood. I'll get a better picture if I expose properly and make it mopey - or cheerier - in pp.