Project 52 - Q3 - David (Rufus)

[Rufus]

There are a couple of stray leaf bits from the left side tree just visible on the top edge.

I think, because of the cloudless sky, I would be tempted to crop tighter at the top and go to a panoramic size ratio. Maybe also lose just a fraction of the foreground shadow area ?

Probably depends on whether the tree height or the far distance scene are the more important to you.

I had not noticed the stray bits of leaf, Geoff.

Cropping all round gives more prominence to the bench and the trees in the middle distance and improves the scene, but the shape of the two foreground trees is sacrificed. As you say, we can take our pick. I suspect most people would prefer the cropped version.

#85 - Cropped (all round)



Of course the cropping still does not entirely address Manfred's critique.

[billtils]

David

I can understand your dilemma only too well, having taken many shots like this. The basic problem is that your eye saw something that appealed but the camera saw something a little different.

Removing the leafy intruders and trying different crops are easy, but to me the main problem is that what should be the centre of attention - the vista that the path in the grass leads you to, is too indistinct.

A little selective dodge and burn and minor tweak to the saturation, and then a slight vignette produced this:

[Rufus]

David -
I can understand your dilemma only too well, having taken many shots like this. The basic problem is that your eye saw something that appealed but the camera saw something a little different.

Removing the leafy intruders and trying different crops are easy, but to me the main problem is that what should be the centre of attention - the vista that the path in the grass leads you to, is too indistinct.

A little selective dodge and burn and minor tweak to the saturation, and then a slight vignette...

Thank you Bill for taking the time to illustrate what can be done. I had to repeatedly toggle between yours and mine to appreciate the subtlety of what you have achieved. So far I detect changes to the foreground shadow, the distant trees and the pathway in the grass and, of course, the gentle vignette. (Edit: and in fact all the grass in the middle distance and farther)

There is only so much that I can learn through trial and error, so comparing images before and after dodging and burning etc is a valuable way for me to gain a better appreciation of how such local adjustments can benefit a scene. I have even started a little library of “before and afters” that I can refer to for greater understanding and inspiration in a practical context. Thank you for contributing the library!

[billtils]

Thank you Bill for taking the time to illustrate what can be done. I had to repeatedly toggle between yours and mine to appreciate the subtlety of what you have achieved. So far I detect changes to the foreground shadow, the distant trees and the pathway in the grass and, of course, the gentle vignette. (Edit: and in fact all the grass in the middle distance and farther)

You're welcome David. Yes, you have identified the areas I worked on and yes, the changes are subtle - I did not want to spoil the gentle nature of your image but when you try it yourself you can be as bold or restrained as you like. I tend to start off gentle and revisit a few times. usually ending up with a happy medium intensity.

[Cantab]

David, having read others' comments, I was left wondering how the image would work if you cloned out the bench -- although I noted your original comment that you liked the bench!

[Rufus]

David, having read others' comments, I was left wondering how the image would work if you cloned out the bench -- although I noted your original comment that you liked the bench!

Thank you for commenting, Bruce. I have done a couple of quick edits. Here it is without the bench OR the dividing line, but still without the benefit of dodging and burning etc:



I find the eye rests further into the picture now.

And when cropped it would be like this, which somewhat reduces the sense of distance but brings more empahsis on the trees in the middle distance:

[skitterbug]

Hi David - Interesting conversation about your landscape image. In post #86, I believe I like the uncropped one and I would clone the little bit of leaf that is at the top that Geoff mentioned, rather than cropping the top. I like the fuller version. Good editing work!

[Rufus]

Hi David - Interesting conversation about your landscape image. In post #86, I believe I like the uncropped one and I would clone the little bit of leaf that is at the top that Geoff mentioned, rather than cropping the top. I like the fuller version. Good editing work!

Thank you for looking and commenting, Sandy. Thank also you for your encouraging remark about my editing. It is something (yet another) that I am gradually learning about and need a lot more practice at!

[Rufus]

Week 39. This week is an image of a Dahlia.

My plan to attempt a sharp subject comprised 3 elements: a sufficiently fast shutter speed to reduce camera shake, waiting for a lull in the slight breeze to reduce subject movement, and sharpen the image in Lightroom.

In Photoshop I selected the flower and brought out some extra colour in it by duplicating layers and using the Multiply blend mode.

I then darkened the background with an exposure adjustment and a vignette.

I wanted to burn the lighter background colours but and dodge the stem, but was not successful. I have a long way to go on this, but one day the penny will drop...

#87 - Dahlia (1/250sec at f/4 and ISO 200 with zoom set at 105mm)

[Rufus]

Now that I have looked again, it appears that I did not nail the focus in the centre of the dahlia.

[Geoff F]

Looks fine to me in the Lightbox view.

With real life backgrounds I usually find it is best to leave well alone after a little bit of brightness adjustment. Too much fiddling around can easily result in a messy looking result which doesn't look natural.

[xpatUSA]

Now that I have looked again, it appears that I did not nail the focus in the centre of the dahlia.

David, I don't know what the shooting distance was but, at say 50cm, f/4 gets you a DOF of only about 4mm (based on full-frame, CoC 0.029mm). That means there will always be parts of that flower out-of-focus ...

... I assume that you know how to fix that ...

[Rufus]

David, I don't know what the shooting distance was but, at say 50cm, f/4 gets you a DOF of only about 4mm (based on full-frame, CoC 0.029mm). That means there will always be parts of that flower out-of-focus ...

... I assume that you know how to fix that ...

It gets worse...the lens was set at 105mm!