comments on edits

[CatherineA]

Any suggestions on improving the edits? Thanks!

[LenR]

Catherine, no image is visible?

[CatherineA]

Catherine, no image is visible?

Thanks Len. I've updated it!

[LenR]

My immediate thought is that the image is on the bright side. Perhaps reducing the mid tones and doing a little selective burning in to the hot spots between the trees and the left and right foreground.

[CatherineA]

My immediate thought is that the image is on the bright side. Perhaps reducing the mid tones and doing a little selective burning in to the hot spots between the trees and the left and right foreground.

Thanks Len, I will try those edits. When you lower mid-tones do you use the tone curve or do you use a different approach?

[LenR]

Catherine, yes, drag down the mid - values using the tone curve. You could also try taming the hot spots using a combination of global reduction in the high values and selective burning.

[CatherineA]

This was done quickly and I will need to fine-tune it, but is this the idea?

[Manfred M]

Catherine - the first question I would ask myself before shooting the scene and then prior to post-processing is "what mood do I want to convey here?".

Being an old, run down cemetery, a dark and spooky look is probably one that would be effective. I suspect that this is an IR image, given the file name and the bright leaves. This puts you in a bit of a bind for the dark and spooky look as leaves under IR tend to come out looking quite light as they are transparent to IR wavelengths.

I agree with Len, that the image is too light and pulling down the mid-tones makes a lot of sense to me as well. With this much highlight value, I would use a luminosity mask on the highlights and would pull them down, which is again the same approach, but different technique from what Len has suggested.

The last thing I might do is go to a pure B&W versus the monochrome to give the image a darker mood.


It's still not moody enough, but there isn't enough data in the JPEG file you have posted to push it as hard as I would like to.

[LenR]

Hi Catherine, the edits are taking the image in the right direction. I also think that going to a a pure B&W as suggested by Manfred adds to the moodiness of the old cemetery scene.

[pschlute]

I second the suggestion for a moody scene in b+w.

I would turn the picture into night time with a mysterious light illuminating a "path" to the gates !

[William W]

Any suggestions on improving the edits?

I would like to provide suggestions: could you please also supply the JPEG SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) so, by comparing and contrasting those two images, I have a much better idea as to what edits you made.

Thank you.

WW

[CatherineA]

I second the suggestion for a moody scene in b+w.

I would turn the picture into night time with a mysterious light illuminating a "path" to the gates !

That's great Peter, thank you! I am going to try a similar approach and see if I can highlight that tombstone that is outside the fence. It doesn't lend itself as easily to having a leading line though so maybe I won't be able to get it to work. I had thought of trying a composite and putting a photo of my dog by that lone tombstone but that would be so sad (and a little tacky?)

[CatherineA]

Catherine - the first question I would ask myself before shooting the scene and then prior to post-processing is "what mood do I want to convey here?".

Being an old, run down cemetery, a dark and spooky look is probably one that would be effective. I suspect that this is an IR image, given the file name and the bright leaves. This puts you in a bit of a bind for the dark and spooky look as leaves under IR tend to come out looking quite light as they are transparent to IR wavelengths.

I agree with Len, that the image is too light and pulling down the mid-tones makes a lot of sense to me as well. With this much highlight value, I would use a luminosity mask on the highlights and would pull them down, which is again the same approach, but different technique from what Len has suggested.

The last thing I might do is go to a pure B&W versus the monochrome to give the image a darker mood.


It's still not moody enough, but there isn't enough data in the JPEG file you have posted to push it as hard as I would like to.

I wasn't thinking spooky at the time, more as a marker of time passing. It was beside a busy road and although it seems forgotten fresh flags were placed by some of the tombstones. There were in fact a number of features that drew my attention and perhaps that can be a drawback. I think there is are stories in the photo and perhaps different edits would bring out different stories.

The monochrome brought to mind a faded photo found in a drawer. I do like the b+w though. Thank you!

[CatherineA]

I would like to provide suggestions: could you please also supply the JPEG SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) so, by comparing and contrasting those two images, I have a much better idea as to what edits you made.

Thank you.

WW

Hi William, I wasn't very methodical in my edits which is something that I am trying to improve on these days. Here is the SOOC image. Thank you for offering to look at it.

[DanK]

Catherine,

I think this thread may show that you are mixing a few different questions together.

The first question you should ask yourself, before doing any editing at all, is what Manfred asked, but I would put it much more generally: What do you want the photo to look like? To exaggerate a bit, until you have answered that question, editing is a bit like throwing darts without first finding out where the target is hung. For example, I have one type of photograph in which I always increase texture, and for those, the question becomes which tools to use to accomplish that and how much (and of what coarseness) to add--that is, how to do that particular edit. In contrast, I do a lot of candid photography of little kids, and in that work, I never increase texture.

The second question then becomes: what editing tools can I use to accomplish what I want to do with this image, and how should I best use them? Do I need to adjust tones at the top, middle, or bottom? Is there enough contrast or two much? is the image sharpened appropriately, or too much (a common mistake when people start out)? And so on.

The third question is raised by your comment about being systematic. I am not one of those people who has or recommends an entirely standard workflow, but it does make sense to have an idea of how you would proceed. Once you are comfortable with a somewhat standard procedure, you will become comfortable with deliberate changes to it. For example, I always start with global edits (things that affect the entire image) and then move on to local edits, like burning and dodging. You haven't said what software you use, but if you use Lightroom, and if you set aside the local edits (which are located near the top), the order of the develop panel on the right is a good place for a newbie to start with global edits: start with the "basic" panel at the top. This contains all of the tonality adjustments other than the curve tool, as well as a number of other commonly used adjustments, such as vibrance. Then pick and choose from the boxes below "Basic".

Dan

[William W]

Thank for posting the SOOC. I assume it has been shot with an IR Filter on the lens.

I think similar to Dan - (and Manfred), in general terms,
Question 1 "What do I want this to look like?"
Question 2 "How do I get there?"

As for my comments - Firstly I think that the scene itself appears not the best for IR because there isn't enough variance of heat on the key Objects in the shot. However that comment should not deter neither using an IR Filter on that scene nor the Post Production to an image you that you want.

I think if you want to simulate an old photo found on a drawer, then Sepia would be my first choice. (On my monitor, your edit is not Sepia)

Whilst I like the idea of the 'pathway' which Len introduced, I think that in the context of 'time passing' working on the tombstone outside the fence is a good idea.

WW

PS - The two images you've uploaded are Low Resolution and the SOOC doesn't have EXIF: that's merely a comment noting that Low Res Images without EXIF limit the detail of Interrogation and Post Production Editing.

I think that the Original is probably underexposed and would be interested in the lens and camera used: it exhibits traits of a Zoom Lens used with and IR Filter.

Additionally: I'd like to know the Aperture used, possibly, (guessing now) if you could use around F/11 you might have attained less of the centre-of-lens disproportionate exposure, though this artifact varies from lens to lens. If that centre-of-lens artifact were recurring, it would be a pain in the gluteus maximus, for me

What IR Filter? ... IR72?

[xpatUSA]

Here is the SOOC image.

How about a conversion to grayscale, a histogram expansion with mid-tone slider adjustment, then split-toning to the ever-recurring movie theme Teal and Orange?

For example, a quick shot with Layers and Masks:



My toning could be better ... -not much of a mood there.

Perhaps more Teal and less Orange by adjusting the mid-point of the grayscale layer?

[xpatUSA]

How about a conversion to grayscale, a histogram expansion with mid-tone slider adjustment, then split-toning to the ever-recurring movie theme Teal and Orange?

For example, a quick shot with Layers and Masks:



My toning could be better ... -not much of a mood there.

Perhaps more Teal and less Orange

[CatherineA]

Catherine,

I think this thread may show that you are mixing a few different questions together.

The first question you should ask yourself, before doing any editing at all, is what Manfred asked, but I would put it much more generally: What do you want the photo to look like? To exaggerate a bit, until you have answered that question, editing is a bit like throwing darts without first finding out where the target is hung. For example, I have one type of photograph in which I always increase texture, and for those, the question becomes which tools to use to accomplish that and how much (and of what coarseness) to add--that is, how to do that particular edit. In contrast, I do a lot of candid photography of little kids, and in that work, I never increase texture.

The second question then becomes: what editing tools can I use to accomplish what I want to do with this image, and how should I best use them? Do I need to adjust tones at the top, middle, or bottom? Is there enough contrast or two much? is the image sharpened appropriately, or too much (a common mistake when people start out)? And so on.

The third question is raised by your comment about being systematic. I am not one of those people who has or recommends an entirely standard workflow, but it does make sense to have an idea of how you would proceed. Once you are comfortable with a somewhat standard procedure, you will become comfortable with deliberate changes to it. For example, I always start with global edits (things that affect the entire image) and then move on to local edits, like burning and dodging. You haven't said what software you use, but if you use Lightroom, and if you set aside the local edits (which are located near the top), the order of the develop panel on the right is a good place for a newbie to start with global edits: start with the "basic" panel at the top. This contains all of the tonality adjustments other than the curve tool, as well as a number of other commonly used adjustments, such as vibrance. Then pick and choose from the boxes below "Basic".

Dan

Thank you, Dan. Those suggestions are really helpful to keep in mind. I'm taking a couple of editing courses now so hopefully I'll improve in what I aim to do. It's also fascinating to see what can be done - things I would never have thought of.

[CatherineA]

Thank for posting the SOOC. I assume it has been shot with an IR Filter on the lens.

I think similar to Dan - (and Manfred), in general terms,
Question 1 "What do I want this to look like?"
Question 2 "How do I get there?"

As for my comments - Firstly I think that the scene itself appears not the best for IR because there isn't enough variance of heat on the key Objects in the shot. However that comment should not deter neither using an IR Filter on that scene nor the Post Production to an image you that you want.

I think if you want to simulate an old photo found on a drawer, then Sepia would be my first choice. (On my monitor, your edit is not Sepia)

Whilst I like the idea of the 'pathway' which Len introduced, I think that in the context of 'time passing' working on the tombstone outside the fence is a good idea.

WW

PS - The two images you've uploaded are Low Resolution and the SOOC doesn't have EXIF: that's merely a comment noting that Low Res Images without EXIF limit the detail of Interrogation and Post Production Editing.

I think that the Original is probably underexposed and would be interested in the lens and camera used: it exhibits traits of a Zoom Lens used with and IR Filter.

Additionally: I'd like to know the Aperture used, possibly, (guessing now) if you could use around F/11 you might have attained less of the centre-of-lens disproportionate exposure, though this artifact varies from lens to lens. If that centre-of-lens artifact were recurring, it would be a pain in the gluteus maximus, for me

What IR Filter? ... IR72?

Thanks, Bill! I certainly hadn't taken heat variance in the objects into consideration. An important take-away for me from posting this is to ask that initial question, of where I want to take a photo in editing. I still like the composition so it will be a good one for me to try again on with that question in mind.

It tends to be a "glory hallelujah" moment when I manage to post an image so I hadn't paid enough attention to the resolution or EXIF. Next time I will duo better because I really appreciate that people take the time to look and comment.

I took the photo with a 55mm prime lens at f/7.1 with an 850nm IR filter.