Cape Cross

[Manfred M]

I'm working through the archives looking for a seascape image I really like. This one is the Cape Fur Seal Colony, at Cape Cross, Namibia during pupping season.

[Manfred M]

Just out of interest, this is the image I started with:



Is with all my work, 90% is dodging and burning.

[davidedric]

Thanks for sharing, Manfred. I do find it helpful to see the before and after.

From what I remember, multi media would need to include smell to get the real feel of the place!

Dave

[mugge]

This must have taken you a while, Manfred. A lot of burning I think.
Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

Thanks for sharing, Manfred. I do find it helpful to see the before and after.

From what I remember, multi media would need to include smell to get the real feel of the place!

Dave

As I recall, the smell was rather noticeable and quite pungent. The smell of the seals and all the placentas on the beach were quite pungent.

If only people knew, they would thank me for omitting that part of the experience.

[Manfred M]

This must have taken you a while, Manfred. A lot of burning I think.
Cheers Ole

I typically spend about an hour or two on an image as complex as this one. Most of the work is done using selection tools and some of the cleanup and the final pass is done by hand.

[DanK]

Quite an image!

I wonder whether it would help to add a bit more local contrast and midtone contrast to everything but the sky and background.

[Manfred M]

Quite an image!

I wonder whether it would help to add a bit more local contrast and midtone contrast to everything but the sky and background.

Thanks for the suggestion, Dan.

I've been going back and forth on that aspect of the image; there is a very fine line I am trying to hit between the mid-tones where I drive down the darks too much and raise up the lights too much. I thought I had nailed it when I posted early this morning, but when I starting looking at your suggestion some more, I can still get a bit more "presence" out of the shot, especially in the middle ground.

[DanK]

Thanks for the suggestion, Dan.

I've been going back and forth on that aspect of the image; there is a very fine line I am trying to hit between the mid-tones where I drive down the darks too much and raise up the lights too much. I thought I had nailed it when I posted early this morning, but when I starting looking at your suggestion some more, I can still get a bit more "presence" out of the shot.

Manfred,

Just comparing the version in the thread and the larger version in the lightbox (lyte box?), I think this might be a case where the ideal amount of contrast and local contrast depends on size. The smaller size obscures detail that is more apparent in the larger size. However, I don't think I have ever dealt with an image like this, so I am shooting a bit in the dark.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Just comparing the version in the thread and the larger version in the lightbox (lyte box?), I think this might be a case where the ideal amount of contrast and local contrast depends on size. The smaller size obscures detail that is more apparent in the larger size. However, I don't think I have ever dealt with an image like this, so I am shooting a bit in the dark.

Dan

The image size does make a difference. Visually the small images tend to look a touch darker than the large ones.

I've hit the point where I am going to sit on it for a week or so and then run a test print. I start my advanced printing course in a couple of weeks and know that we are going to have to produce around 20 large prints over the duration of the course, so I am looking ahead at which images I am going to work on.

I've started to make my test prints on 13" x 19" Epson Proofing Paper. It runs at around $1/sheet and is a pretty good proxy for printing on any coated paper at a fraction of the paper cost (although the ink cost is still there).

[xpatUSA]

The image size does make a difference. Visually the small images tend to look a touch darker than the large ones.

I've hit the point where I am going to sit on it for a week or so and then run a test print. I start my advanced printing course in a couple of weeks and know that we are going to have to produce around 20 large prints over the duration of the course, so I am looking ahead at which images I am going to work on.

I've started to make my test prints on 13" x 19" Epson Proofing Paper. It runs at around $1/sheet and is a pretty good proxy for printing on any coated paper at a fraction of the paper cost (although the ink cost is still there).

What would be your final image size before printing, Manfred?

I see that your posted image size is 2048x1325px but I don't know what algorithm CiC uses to down-size to the post image. That would affect image quality, would it not?

The plot thickens in my browser because I have FireFox set to 133% which is better for my poor vision. In other words, yet another unknown algorithm up-sizes your image to way bigger than 2048 wide, making it hard to comment as to the detail.

[xpatUSA]

The plot thickens in my browser because I have FireFox set to 133% which is better for my poor vision. In other words, yet another unknown algorithm up-sizes your image to way bigger than 2048 wide, making it hard to comment as to the detail.

Downloading and applying a quick global de-haze in RT seems to bring out the animals without significantly affecting the background.



Not suggesting that de-hazing is better than any other means ... just posted FYI.

[Manfred M]

Ted - I always downsize my images to a maximum of 2048 pixels on the long side when posting to ensure a reasonable load time for members that are not running a fast internet connection. I've noticed a number commenting from their phones, so I feel that this is a reasonable compromise. The image itself is 4210 x 2724 pixels and I am looking to print this on A3+ (13" x 19") paper to 11" x 17", which gives me around a 3/4" white border when I mat the print.

I tend to go very easy with the dehaze or any other filter that affects micro-contrast; these filters can give the image a "crunchy" look when printed if applied too liberally. I have already applied a small amount of dehaze in the version I posted, but have not gotten to the output sharpening stage. I've done a bit of in-process sharpening to bring out the mountains and clouds in the background.

Let me post the full sized version here; I still need to do a bit of softening to the sky and background:

[xpatUSA]

Ted - I always downsize my images to a maximum of 2048 pixels on the long side when posting to ensure a reasonable load time for members that are not running a fast internet connection. I've noticed a number commenting from their phones, so I feel that this is a reasonable compromise. The image itself is 4210 x 2724 pixels and I am looking to print this on A3+ (13" x 19") paper to 11" x 17", which gives me around a 3/4" white border when I mat the print.

I tend to go very easy with the dehaze or any other filter that affects micro-contrast; these filters can give the image a "crunchy" look when printed if applied too liberally. I have already applied a small amount of dehaze in the version I posted, but have not gotten to the output sharpening stage. I've done a bit of in-process sharpening to bring out the mountains and clouds in the background.

Let me post the full sized version here; I still need to do a bit of softening to the sky and background:

Thanks for the info, Manfred.

Thanks also for posting the full-size work-in-progress; that scene is quite a challenge, I imagine! Almost as if they are chameleons matching the sand ...