Experimentation with post-processing, requesting feedback

[CIC]

Hello dear Members

While I do not prefer to post-process the wildlife photos I take to change the lighting or colour, in this case, I wanted to experiment to bring out a different mood. The original photo was taken inside Bandipur Wildlife Sanctuary under the harsh noonday sun. So, it lacks character and mood. The original was pretty flat indeed. So I decided to experiment a little bit using Ps to change the overall look of the photo.

I would greatly appreciate members' feedback and suggestions/advice regarding the photo. If it is garbage, please let me know that too.

Thank you all.







Full resolution: https://500px.com/photo/1035137972/a...-roy-choudhury

[xpatUSA]

While I do not prefer to post-process the wildlife photos I take to change the lighting or colour, in this case, I wanted to experiment to bring out a different mood.




<snipped original>

Lots of atmosphere, well done Srijan.

While realizing that the ray of light is artificial (I think?), would it possible to lower the angle from about 45 deg to say 15 or 20 deg so as to give a morning or evening appearance?

I don't use Ps so I don't know if it can do that ...

[Manfred M]

Srijan - creating a convincing "fake" is far more challenging than taking a strong image with the proper characteristics in the first place. Putting an artificial spot light on the rear end of an elephant does not create a strong and convincing image.

The light simply looks wrong. It looks like it comes from behind the animal but it seems to light the opposite side. That is not realistic and, in my view, is less effective than the original shot.

[CIC]

Lots of atmosphere, well done Srijan.

While realizing that the ray of light is artificial (I think?), would it possible to lower the angle from about 45 deg to say 15 or 20 deg so as to give a morning or evening appearance?

I don't use Ps so I don't know if it can do that ...

Hello Ted, thank you for your encouraging words. Those light rays are artificial and I would surely try to change the angle to the ones you suggested. Though I must confess, I am not that good at this sort of post-processing.

Srijan - creating a convincing "fake" is far more challenging than taking a strong image with the proper characteristics in the first place. Putting an artificial spot light on the rear end of an elephant does not create a strong and convincing image.

The light simply looks wrong. It looks like it comes from behind the animal but it seems to light the opposite side. That is not realistic and, in my view, is less effective than the original shot.

@Manfred, thank you very much for your time and effort to point out the mistakes. Would you be kind enough to point me to the portions of the photo where you think that the light is hitting wrong? Please understand that while adding these light rays, I tried to keep the point you raised in mind. That is why I added the rays to the hindside of the elephant so the front and lower portion remain in relative darkness and the back and a part of the top are in the light.

[Geoff F]

I am with Manfred about this image. To me, that narrow light beam just looks like somebody is shining a spotlight and not natural lighting.

The original looks good, although maybe a few tweaks could increase the contrast slightly and give a bit more of a boost to the scene.

[xpatUSA]

I am with Manfred about this image. To me, that narrow light beam just looks like somebody is shining a spotlight and not natural lighting.<>

In the original post, it wasn't clear to me whether Srijan was trying to re-create natural lighting or not.

The hue of the beam certainly does not reflect it's current 45-degree incidence. In other words, mid-morning or mid-afternoon sky colors are certainly not orange/yellow ...

[xpatUSA]

Hello Ted, thank you for your encouraging words. Those light rays are artificial and I would surely try to change the angle to the ones you suggested. Though I must confess, I am not that good at this sort of post-processing.

Neither I am, especially when layers have twenty different ways of merging and not to mention opacity and all that stuff.

Was the beam meant to represent "natural" lighting in any way, Srijan - or was it just a beam from an unknown source?

[Manfred M]

@Manfred, thank you very much for your time and effort to point out the mistakes. Would you be kind enough to point me to the portions of the photo where you think that the light is hitting wrong? Please understand that while adding these light rays, I tried to keep the point you raised in mind. That is why I added the rays to the hindside of the elephant so the front and lower portion remain in relative darkness and the back and a part of the top are in the light.

Frankly the whole image is not working for me; the light looks unnatural everywhere; the direction of the beam of light looks wrong, the light drop off looks wrong and the soft blurring of the background look wrong. It looks like you blurred the area, rather than having the background blur from a shallow depth of field.

Building this type of effect by hand is a lot of work and you need observe how light behaves, especially natural light.

[xpatUSA]

Building this type of effect by hand is a lot of work and you need observe how light behaves, especially natural light.

It remains unclear to me what Srijan intended, in spite of responses here weighing in with multiple mentions of "natural light". I have asked him the question somewhere above.

[Manfred M]

It remains unclear to me what Srijan intended, in spite of responses here weighing in with multiple mentions of "natural light". I have asked him the question somewhere above.

Ted - I am simply saying that the image does not work for me; it looks wrong.

[CIC]

Neither I am, especially when layers have twenty different ways of merging and not to mention opacity and all that stuff.

Was the beam meant to represent "natural" lighting in any way, Srijan - or was it just a beam from an unknown source?

Dear Ted, I did not try to create "natural light" per se, I tried to infuse some drama in an image that appeared rather flat and uninteresting to me.

Dear Manfred, I sincerely thank you for your time and input. I understand that the photo is absolute 'garbage', at least for you, and that is fine with me. I value your judgement a lot. As I mentioned clearly in the title of the thread, it is an experimentation and if it goes wrong I can still learn a lot from it.

Now I must clarify why was I motivated to do this. If you search the net you shall come across wildlife photos of Shaaz Jung (https://www.instagram.com/shaazjung/?hl=en) who is highly accomplished in his field and I admire his work. Though I must admit that the "ambience" of his photos does appear to be bordering real and surreal, at least for me. Hence, with my limited Ps skills, I tried to see if I can at least create some drama in an otherwise "boring" wildlife shot. Please understand that I had no intention to copy his work but got inspired by his style. If possible I would request @Manfred, @Ted and other experienced members here to discuss a bit about his work and how they think that he obtains this sort of ambience.

Thank you again.

[xpatUSA]

Dear Ted, I did not try to create "natural light" per se, I tried to infuse some drama in an image that appeared rather flat and uninteresting to me. ...

Thanks, Srijan. I suspected as much.

[royent]

I think that I would have liked the light to have come from the opposite side. Lighting the animal's front end rather than the rear

[billtils]

Dear Ted, I did not try to create "natural light" per se, I tried to infuse some drama in an image that appeared rather flat and uninteresting to me.
...
As I mentioned clearly in the title of the thread, it is an experimentation and if it goes wrong I can still learn a lot from it.
...
Now I must clarify why was I motivated to do this. If you search the net you shall come across wildlife photos of Shaaz Jung )...

Thanks for posting the link, it makes it clear what you are trying to achieve. If I may make two suggestions: firstly, this is going to be a long journey for you and it will take many attempts before you reach the level that you are aiming for; secondly it may help to be more selective with the choice of starting image.

There is not much of interest in the elephant, and certainly nothing in its rear end - all the features of interest are in the head area. Perhaps start again and use more or less the same processing approach to highlight the eyes/ears/trunk/tusks?

Good luck and don't give up.

[CIC]

Thanks for posting the link, it makes it clear what you are trying to achieve. If I may make two suggestions: firstly, this is going to be a long journey for you and it will take many attempts before you reach the level that you are aiming for; secondly it may help to be more selective with the choice of starting image.

There is not much of interest in the elephant, and certainly nothing in its rear end - all the features of interest are in the head area. Perhaps start again and use more or less the same processing approach to highlight the eyes/ears/trunk/tusks?

Good luck and don't give up.

Thanks so much for your kind words and encouragement.
Could it be possible for you to express your take on the way/approach that S. Jung takes while processing his images? I feel that I am missing something regarding colour balance.

@Ted, you're most welcome.

@Roy, thank you for your suggestion.

[Manfred M]

Sjrijan - I've looked at his web page, rather that his Instagram site as the quality and size of the images are easier to analyze.

His impact comes from well-lit and well photographed images. Some of these are heavily manipulated in Photoshop (for example the photo composites). Others are more photojournalistic in nature and being documentary images, no manipulation other than what we would have done in the traditional "wet" darkroom are allowed (brightness, contrast and local exposure control (a.k.a dodging and burning).

When I see that he spent a decade working in Nagarhole National Park, the quality and intimacy of his work there is a result of knowing the area and the habits of the individual animals. If you look at the images, he has shot his subjects in good light and he has worked with that. In wildlife photography, good light does not necessarily mean shooting close to sunrise or sunset, it means shooting in light that shows off the key aspects of the animal very well; which includes overcast and rainy conditions.

You have to start with a strong image and have the technical skills to pull out the images strengths and downplay those weaknesses. You seem to understand that in your previous postings of the rainfall over the water. This image, on the other hand has decent lighting, but the pose and setting are awkward.

[xpatUSA]

Now I must clarify why was I motivated to do this. If you search the net you shall come across wildlife photos of Shaaz Jung (https://www.instagram.com/shaazjung/?hl=en) who is highly accomplished in his field and I admire his work.

If possible I would request @Manfred, @Ted and other experienced members here to discuss a bit about his work and how they think that he obtains this sort of ambience.

Hello again,

Not being a wildlife shooter per se, I can only make general comment.

For most of my hobby shooting, my main concern was to reproduce the original scene as closely as possible.

In the past few years, I too have become more interested in jazzing up my boring shots mainly with faux color including using an IR-modified camera but also embarking on a long process of learning to use layers and masks for various purposes.

I shoot my street a lot for test purposes ... it is nothing special, a rural dirt road ending at a cross-street. But throw in an extra or two and voila:



On the other hand, that same scene takes on a wildly different appearance with an IR filter on the lens:



The gentleman that you linked to certainly has a style that sets him apart from yet-another-big-cat shots!

As to "how", I don't use Ps so can't help much there ...

[CIC]

Sjrijan - I've looked at his web page, rather than his Instagram site as the quality and size of the images are easier to analyze.

His impact comes from well-lit and well-photographed images. Some of these are heavily manipulated in Photoshop (for example the photo composites). Others are more photojournalistic in nature and being documentary images, no manipulation other than what we would have done in the traditional "wet" darkroom are allowed (brightness, contrast and local exposure control (a.k.a dodging and burning).

When I see that he spent a decade working in Nagarhole National Park, the quality and intimacy of his work there is a result of knowing the area and the habits of the individual animals. If you look at the images, he has shot his subjects in good light and he has worked with that. In wildlife photography, good light does not necessarily mean shooting close to sunrise or sunset, it means shooting in light that shows off the key aspects of the animal very well; which includes overcast and rainy conditions.

You have to start with a strong image and have the technical skills to pull out the images strengths and downplay those weaknesses. You seem to understand that in your previous postings of the rainfall over the water. This image, on the other hand, has decent lighting, but the pose and setting are awkward.

Thank you so much, Manfred. You have been so kind to me and I am grateful for that.

Could you please point to me a few examples where you think composite was used? I do have some in mind, but I would like to confirm with you first.

In the meantime, following your advice, I have post-processed the following two photos. Please be kind enough to comment. I am eagerly looking forward to your guidance. Please note, I have not changed any colour and only used traditional post-processing changes like selective dodge and burn, contrast and saturation.





High Resolution: https://500px.com/photo/1035236346/a...-roy-choudhury

Hello again,

Not being a wildlife shooter per se, I can only make general comment.

For most of my hobby shooting, my main concern was to reproduce the original scene as closely as possible.

In the past few years, I too have become more interested in jazzing up my boring shots mainly with faux color including using an IR-modified camera but also embarking on a long process of learning to use layers and masks for various purposes.

I shoot my street a lot for test purposes ... it is nothing special, a rural dirt road ending at a cross-street. But throw in an extra or two and voila:

Dear Ted, I am rather unsure how to respond to these photos, but these sure look different! Please keep on sharing your experiments, in my humble opinion, ultimately that is how "Art" grows.

[Manfred M]

Thank you so much, Manfred. You have been so kind to me and I am grateful for that.

Could you please point to me a few examples where you think composite was used? I do have some in mind, but I would like to confirm with you first

If you go to this part of his website: http://shaazjung.com/light-and-shadows/ and look at the third image, there is no question that this is a composite.

[Manfred M]

I find that your elephants are very well done, but personally I find that the areas of grass and ground are a bit too intense and in need of a bit of desaturation; on the grass both the yellow and green channels and on the ground the red and yellow channels.

I tried to open up the shadows a bit on the dark parts of the elephants, as a bit more texture there would help, but there isn't enough data in the posted file to work with.






The warthog is not working that well as the pose is not particularly effective and the grass on the left hand side is a bit overpowering.