Sunset on the Bay

[joebranko]

These shots were taken in the Bay in Hamilton Harbour. The ship access to Hamilton Harbour is about 200m behind me so from where I stood there are no ships nor industrial or maritime events in sight.




Sunset 154mm, f8, 1/800", ISO 800






A man-made island in the bay lit by the setting sun.






Trees at the shore of the Bay lit by the sunset. f7.1, 1/160', ISO 400, 163mm.

[Shadowman]

Nice capture of the colors.

[Manfred M]

Some thoughts for you:

Sunset - the colours are nice, but there is no point of interest in the image. It technically looks to be a landscape shot, but there is no foreground, just a very tiny bit of middle ground and mostly background. Generally a landscape shot should have these three areas.

Man-made island - this is the strongest image of the group. Being more or less back-lit means that much of the island is in shadow, so bringing that detail out (Lightroom Shadows slider to the right) would help there. Adding a gradient to the sky would bring out a bit more texture and interest in it.

I'm thinking about something along these terms:



Trees at shore - same issues as the first image. The colours are interesting, but there is no centre of interest or subject to grab the viewer's attention. You have a foreground and middle ground but no background. The middle ground is very busy.

[joebranko]

Some thoughts for you:
Man-made island - this is the strongest image of the group. Being more or less back-lit means that much of the island is in shadow, so bringing that detail out (Lightroom Shadows slider to the right) would help there.

I should have known that. Angry at myself.

Adding a gradient to the sky would bring out a bit more texture and interest in it.

I am considering getting an ND graduating filter since I take so many sunsets and sunrises. I know Lightroom has a digital option for this situation but think that controlling it during capture would produce a better image ?

I'm thinking about something along these terms:

I like what you have done here.

Trees at shore - same issues as the first image. The colours are interesting, but there is no centre of interest or subject to grab the viewer's attention. You have a foreground and middle ground but no background. The middle ground is very busy.

The only reason I took the shot was for the light on the trees ( and the reflections). I agree that having someone or something on the rocky beach would have added a lot to it. The background was crap so I cropped it.

[joebranko]

Nice capture of the colors.

Thanks John.

[Geoff F]

A graduating filter can help if you are photographing the right sort of scenes under the required conditions. But they don't always work well for some situations, for example where you don't want a steady gradient across the whole scene.

When faced with those situations I tend to shoot bracketed exposures then do a hand made merge with layers and masks after auto aligning the layers. Alternatively if working from a single shot I make two or three conversions from the Raw file with different settings then merge them.

But this does require suitable software with the ability to work with layers and masks.

Manfred has already mentioned most of my thoughts about this series of images. With the first one, I might try a slightly closer crop to remove a little of the sky. Do the gulls add something or just cause distractions?

The last image is one of those scenes where I often look and think about what can be done then just walk away; or occasionally take a 'shoot and hope' image but without any real expectation of success. The main area is out of focus but even then it is too busy without any main subject, as previously mentioned.

Today, I was faced with some similar situations and walked around looking for suitable angles; then gave up. Eventually I got a couple of shots which I thought might just about work after some editing; but the more I look at my results the more doubts I have.

[joebranko]

. Alternatively if working from a single shot I make two or three conversions from the Raw file with different settings then merge them.

But this does require suitable software with the ability to work with layers and masks.

Thanks Geoff. I am not sure how you do that. Could you please give me a little more details of this process?

[Manfred M]

I am considering getting an ND graduating filter since I take so many sunsets and sunrises. I know Lightroom has a digital option for this situation but think that controlling it during capture would produce a better image ?

It is one of those "it depends" answers. I used a soft 3-stop soft grad when I took this picture on Tuesday afternoon while walking on the still frozen Ottawa River, shortly before sunset. Without it, the sun would have been totally blown out and the "hottest" white I see has a value of 252, so not blown out.




That is definitely one shooting scenario were a GND filter will outperform a Lightroom grad. I could have bracketed the shots as well and blended in Photoshop, as an alternative; this was a simpler solution. For other scenarios, I tend to use PP software, as I generally don't shoot directly into the su.

[Geoff F]

Several options here, Joe.

Firstly, does your editing software support layers?

If so, there are various options to consider but basically take a Raw image and edit it to suit, for example, the midtones. Save that edit, or transfer to your main editing window. Open the Raw file again and edit for the shadows/highlights and save or transfer the results.

If you are saving the edits, open them in the main edit window and arrange as layers. Maybe open them as 'Load Scripts' all in one go or copy/paste to get them into the main edit area as layers.

Once you have the different Raw edits arranged as layers, add a mask to each one. Pick one to be the base layer and place the other layers on top. Choose a mask type; for example, Hide All Mask. Use a suitable brush to paint over the chosen mask as required to gradually apply the effects on that layer. Use a low opacity brush and keep going over the same areas to slowly bring out the required changes. Vary the brush size as needed. For instance a large brush to cover the sky area in successive sweeps or a small brush to bring up little areas, such as faces etc.

But, there are many other alternatives for working on masks. A graduated mask similar to shooting with a graduated filter. Create a selection with the auto selection tool or lasso, etc. These will need to be feathered at the edges. Set the layer properties to show or hide selection. I sometimes use the auto select tool for selecting a whole sky then in the Layer Menu choose Reveal Selection.

It will take a bit of time to get familiar with all the masking techniques but eventually these become very useful editing tools.

However, there is a better method of creating your starting point layers if you are able to work with Smart Objects. From your ACR Raw Converter, make your first Raw edit and open as a Smart Object in you main edit window. Right click on the image Layer Menu box and choose 'New Smart Object from Copy' which creates a duplicate smart object. Double click on the thumbnail icon from that menu box and the duplicate image layer is returned to ACR for more editing.

None of these Smart Object edits are fixed so you can return the objects to ACR at anytime for changes to the edits. That way you can have two or three, or more, versions of the original Raw image to use as required by way of edited masks on the layers.

It works in a similar way to creating a HDR image, although not quite a true full HDR exposure so when possible it is best to shoot for bracketed exposures. But this 'mock HDR' can be useful when bracketed shots aren't possible, such as with moving images.

The various methods of achieving this form of editing may initially sound complicated but it should quickly become second nature after a bit of experimenting. I use something along these lines on most of my images.

[joebranko]

Several options here, Joe.

Firstly, does your editing software support layers?

If so, there are various options to consider but basically take a Raw image and edit it to suit, for example, the midtones. Save that edit, or transfer to your main editing window. Open the Raw file again and edit for the shadows/highlights and save or transfer the results.

If you are saving the edits, open them in the main edit window and arrange as layers. Maybe open them as 'Load Scripts' all in one go or copy/paste to get them into the main edit area as layers.

Once you have the different Raw edits arranged as layers, add a mask to each one. Pick one to be the base layer and place the other layers on top. Choose a mask type; for example, Hide All Mask. Use a suitable brush to paint over the chosen mask as required to gradually apply the effects on that layer. Use a low opacity brush and keep going over the same areas to slowly bring out the required changes. Vary the brush size as needed. For instance a large brush to cover the sky area in successive sweeps or a small brush to bring up little areas, such as faces etc.

But, there are many other alternatives for working on masks. A graduated mask similar to shooting with a graduated filter. Create a selection with the auto selection tool or lasso, etc. These will need to be feathered at the edges. Set the layer properties to show or hide selection. I sometimes use the auto select tool for selecting a whole sky then in the Layer Menu choose Reveal Selection.

It will take a bit of time to get familiar with all the masking techniques but eventually these become very useful editing tools.

However, there is a better method of creating your starting point layers if you are able to work with Smart Objects. From your ACR Raw Converter, make your first Raw edit and open as a Smart Object in you main edit window. Right click on the image Layer Menu box and choose 'New Smart Object from Copy' which creates a duplicate smart object. Double click on the thumbnail icon from that menu box and the duplicate image layer is returned to ACR for more editing.

None of these Smart Object edits are fixed so you can return the objects to ACR at anytime for changes to the edits. That way you can have two or three, or more, versions of the original Raw image to use as required by way of edited masks on the layers.

It works in a similar way to creating a HDR image, although not quite a true full HDR exposure so when possible it is best to shoot for bracketed exposures. But this 'mock HDR' can be useful when bracketed shots aren't possible, such as with moving images.

The various methods of achieving this form of editing may initially sound complicated but it should quickly become second nature after a bit of experimenting. I use something along these lines on most of my images.

Thanks Geoff My editing software does not support layers. Also when you save or export an image does it not convert it to a PDF?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Thanks Geoff My editing software does not support layers. Also when you save or export an image does it not convert it to a PDF?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Photoshop, Serif Affinity, Corel Paintshop Pro, Gimp, etc. support layers. These are all pixel based editing tools. Lightroom is not; it is a parametric editor and is quite limited in what one can do with it.

In Photoshop, the output is typically a PSD (Photoshop Document) file or TIFF file, although one can create a PDF as well.

[Geoff F]

I seem to remember some sort of plug in to Lightroom which enabled the use of layers? Not sure if that is a current option though.

If you do end up with software which enables the use of layers and masks, Joe, you will be amazed at the extra opportunities which will be available and allow you to become far more artistic with your editing.

It may seem like a fairly steep initial learning curve but with your current expertise using Lightroom it shouldn't be excessively complicated.

[joebranko]

Photoshop, Serif Affinity, Corel Paintshop Pro, Gimp, etc. support layers. These are all pixel based editing tools. Lightroom is not; it is a parametric editor and is quite limited in what one can do with it.

In Photoshop, the output is typically a PSD (Photoshop Document) file or TIFF file, although one can create a PDF as well.

Does Photoshop Elements support layers? I might be able to get a free copy 😀!

[Manfred M]

Does Photoshop Elements support layers? I might be able to get a free copy 😀!

So far as I can recall it does. There are some restrictions on the raw converter, so far as I remember, but then I have not used Elements in about 15 years.

[Geoff F]

The last time I tried looking at Elements, before signing up to Adobe CC, I think there were layers in a restricted form. But so many items were limited compared with full Photoshop, which meant I quickly discarded any idea of going in that direction.

If I gave up on Adobe Photoshop CC my move would be to Serif Affinity which supports a wide range of editing options including layers and masks. Not sure about their latest Raw Converter though. I moved away from Serif with Photo Plus 14 and their converter at that time was rather poor; so I did my initial conversions with Raw Therapee.

Adobe Photoshop in the CC version isn't cheap but if you only get the Photoshop/Lightroom offer it becomes more realistic on price and certainly does everything I require, plus a lot more.

[joebranko]

Thanks Geoff. I will try the free copy of elements and if that doesn't work I will opt for the Photoshop CC version.

[joebranko]

Thanks Geoff and Manfred. I gave up on the Elements option. My free copy did not include a serial number so activating would have required an upgrade $$. So I decided to opt for the Photoshop CC version. Currently enduring the learning curve. Wondering if it is feasible to do filing and some processing in Lightroom and switch to PS for more processing and layers.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Geoff and Manfred. I gave up on the Elements option. My free copy did not include a serial number so activating would have required an upgrade $$. So I decided to opt for the Photoshop CC version. Currently enduring the learning curve. Wondering if it is feasible to do filing and some processing in Lightroom and switch to PS for more processing and layers.

That is a very common workflow and personal preferences do come into play.

The LightRoom Develop Module and Adobe Camera Raw use the same engine, but the user interface is different. I happen to prefer the Camera Raw user interface, but that's just me.

There are two high level approaches; some people prefer to do all their work in Lightroom / Camera Raw while others do the base minimum in the raw converter and then do virtually all their work in Photoshop (that would be me). There are advantages and disadvantages to both work flows.

[Geoff F]

Have you also got the free Adobe Bridge option?

For me, using Bridge means that I have no need for Lightroom and I find Bridge so much easier.

So, like Manfred, I upload my Raw images to ACR for some initial work then over to the full Photoshop for everything else.

Yes, it will be a steep learning curve but remember that you don't have to understand everything by tomorrow.

There is so much in that software and quite a bit of it is for specialist use so just concentrate on the basics then very gradually experiment with the other stuff. Once mastered, that is powerful editing software.

[DanK]

Thanks Geoff and Manfred. I gave up on the Elements option. My free copy did not include a serial number so activating would have required an upgrade $$. So I decided to opt for the Photoshop CC version. Currently enduring the learning curve. Wondering if it is feasible to do filing and some processing in Lightroom and switch to PS for more processing and layers.

I do most of my processing in LR and switch to PS when I can't do what I need in LR or PS just does it better. Even when I do, I move back to LR for exporting JPEGs to the web or to print. The editing tools in LR have become much more sophisticated over time, and I find that I just don't need photoshop for a lot of my work. For example, most of my bug shots never get to Photoshop. However, there are some things you just can't do in LR, and some things are either better or easier in PS. These two integrate so well that it is easy to switch, as long as you are aware of what you are doing when you move back to LR.

As Manfred noted, the processing engines of LR and ACR are identical. Moreover, as of the version just released, presets are supposed to be compatible between the two. So, it is really just a matter of preference. I personally find LR a more comfortable workspace than ACR. I make extensive use of a small number of LR plugins that make it a nice home base. For example, I can export a stack of TIFFs directly into Zerene, and I can export photos directly to Smugmug without even storing the JPEG on my computer. Also, while PS offers more control over printing than LR does, the LR softproofing and printing are powerful enough for me.