Rocks

[The amateur]

The sun rises over the slope, where orange rocks intertwine in vibrant hues.
A natural tapestry unfolds, punctuated by bluish marks where water once danced. Eroded debris dots the scenery, silent witnesses to the time that shaped this spectacle.
Scattered plants and herbs, with faded orange tones, struggle for life amidst the aridity.
The absence of scale confuses, revealing a grandeur that challenges perception.

[escape]

In my opinion, the photo appears quite busy, with a multitude of elements covering the entire scene. A lot is happening, from the rocks and vegetation. However, one particular element caught my attention - a rock positioned slightly left of center. What struck me about this rock is its striking resemblance to a half-skull. It adds an intriguing and slightly eerie aspect to the scene. Given the already busy nature of the photo, I wonder if enhancing the skull-like resemblance further or using Photoshop to incorporate a skull could add more emphasis and impact to the composition. Just my take.

[The amateur]

Thank you very much for the always very interesting point of view you expressed.

I cannot help but agree that in some way, the whole image seems to be a bit overly crowded without a more designated point of interest.
But that's precisely an aspect that appeals to me and better captures the ambiance. The torrent of debris resulting from a persistent stream of water, slightly to the right of the center and seeming to flow into the lower part of the image, appears to be an important element that separates two sides of the image: the less cluttered rocky side on the right, and conversely, the left side.

I'm seriously considering printing this image in A3 or A3+ size, but I'll first have to choose the paper carefully; it will surely be a Hahnemühle. I have a small package of A4 with various samples to experiment with, but I still need to wait a few days until the ink cartridges arrive.

Cheers !

[DanK]

Antonio,

I've done a number of somewhat similar photos and have one hanging on the wall. They generate a big variation in response that I think is just taste. Some people look for a central focus and find them too busy. Other people enjoy the complexity of the pattern. I'm in the second group. When I had some prints in a gallery in western Massachusetts, I took a print of nearby rocks to the director. I loved. She rejected it. This is the one she rejected:



Concerning printing: I think we probably have somewhat different papers available than you do, although the big name companies, like Hahnemuehle and Canson, are probably available anywhere. For my taste, images like this have to be on a baryta paper. The choice for me is the texture and the whiteness. I've printed these on the original Canon Baryta Photographique (sadly, no longer available) and a Breathing Color paper that is also no longer made, with more texture and slightly warmer (no OBAs).

[The amateur]

Thank you, Dan, for your comment. It's natural that our taste preferences are influenced by what visually pleases us, and that tends to play a significant role in our choices. This happens in photography, as well as in other fields.

The other day, I printed on textured paper and made sure to note its name on the back. I liked it for its slightly warm tone and smooth texture without any shine at all. So far, so good.
Now, the worst part is that I don't know where I put that photo, so I have to start everything again. What will save me are the samples I'll use for testing.
I'll take advantage and print in A4 size, but with two images at the same time, so I can appreciate the results with two different images.

The image you're showing here is very interesting and appealing, with greens punctuating a dominant orangish, blueish and gray. Surely its printing on paper can only enhance it.

Cheers !

[Geoff F]

Antonio. Maybe a very slight crop from the bottom and left side ?

I am not overly concerned about it being a rather confused scene. It looks more like a landscape full of interest to me.

Possibly add a fraction more highlights, carefully applied?

Besides the 'skull' I can see a head with its tongue sticking out, in the top right corner.

[escape]

Besides the 'skull' I can see a head with its tongue sticking out, in the top right corner.

I can now see it, too. Thanks for pointing it out.

[LenR]

I am inclined to agree with Geoff on this one and would consider brightening the shadows a little on bottom left and right.

[The amateur]

Thank you all for your comments !
The initial image I shared with you was still created with my stubbornness about format. Thanks to a conversation here, I've completely abandoned that position and now frame without fixed dimensions.

I've just redone the framing following Geoff's suggestion, and it truly does seem more balanced to me now !

Regarding opening up the shadows, I hope you'll forgive me, but I'll leave them as they are. Often, our perception of an image can vary a bit depending on our monitor calibration and other factors as you know.

Cheers to everyone's health!

[DanK]

I think the image is more balanced now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I like the direction in the last version better as well, but find that the rocks are still generally "too hot" and overpower the rest of the landscape.

[DanK]

So now we have some people saying that the shadows should be lifted and another saying that the highlights should be dropped. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that all parties are responding to the same thing, which is clear in the histogram:



There just isn't much tonal range, and the few highlights are very far from the bulk of the image.

Manfred's edit addresses the latter part by pulling back the highlights. That doesn't touch what I think is the main problem, which is the lack of tonal variation in most of the image, and I think it actually makes the image weaker by making it drabber. Here's the histogram:



If this were mine, I would start by spreading out the tonal range, starting with the midtones. Then, if I still wanted really dark areas, one can pull the shadows back down with a curve or a levels adjustment.

Here's a very rough first shot at doing this. I think it needs more work to add more contrast in the darks, but it might be enough to show what I mean. I'll put the histogram after it.

[Manfred M]

So now we have some people saying that the shadows should be lifted and another saying that the highlights should be dropped. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that all parties are responding to the same thing, which is clear in the histogram:



There just isn't much tonal range, and the few highlights are very far from the bulk of the image.

Manfred's edit addresses the latter part by pulling back the highlights. That doesn't touch what I think is the main problem, which is the lack of tonal variation in most of the image, and I think it actually makes the image weaker by making it drabber. Here's the histogram:



If this were mine, I would start by spreading out the tonal range, starting with the midtones. Then, if I still wanted really dark areas, one can pull the shadows back down with a curve or a levels adjustment.

Here's a very rough first shot at doing this. I think it needs more work to add more contrast in the darks, but it might be enough to show what I mean. I'll put the histogram after it.

I look at this slightly differently, Dan and while I agree with your comments on the overall tonal range in the original, I do feel that we see areas of deep shadow and bright highlights in this shot. If you look at the histogram in my edit, that range is covered. The mid-point on the histogram, which will control the overall impact is very much "opinion"; based on your interpretation in your image, Dan, you prefer brighter images and Antonio seems to go for a darker, moodier look here.

I tend to look at two other key areas when evaluating what to do with an image: Composition and impact. As part of composition (how the elements are arranged in the image) I look at two key areas. Distracting elements (which often occur at or near the edges of the frame) and negative space.

In this shot, the brighter rocks that are near, touch or cross the edge of the frame can be distracting. By toning them down, they draw less attention and keep the viewer's eyes in the frame rather than being pulled out of it. There is very little negative space used in this shot.

I find that this image has "average" impact. That is partially driven by the subject matter and partially by the point-of-view used to take it.


If you look at the attached screen shot, the histogram and layers I used to burn down areas can be seen.

[DanK]

Impact is a matter of taste as well.

Perhaps I should have been more specific about that runs counter to my particular taste. From my reading of the histogram, your edit does run continuously up to a value of about 240, with a few scattered pixels brighter than that. That wasn't what I was referring to. What I was referring to is that in both your edit and the original, almost all of the mass lies between values of roughly 15 and 140. That's what I think makes both images rather drab.

My edit doesn't appreciably extend the top extreme. What it does do is expand the range of the main mass of the image up to a value of about 190 or 200.

Again, this is all a matter of taste. I'm not suggesting that everyone should share mine. My point was that the lack of impact of the image (to my eye) doesn't really stem from either of the extremes noted earlier in the thread, but rather from compression of the midtones.

[LenR]

Concur with Dan on this score..........

[The amateur]

I can't help but agree that the image Dan produced now is much brighter and more luminous than mine. Maybe I lean towards darker, denser images.

Believe it or not, I don't know how to work with curves, it's true. I've noticed the importance of this tool even on YouTube channels, how powerful it seems and how it can yield great results if used right.

Perhaps it's because I dedicated a lot to LR due to its evolution, but your suggestions and tips are pushing me to try and learn something about the Curves feature. In due time.

But now, with the TKPanel's automatic lighting levels add-on, things seem easier (though those curves are still waiting for me). However, with more and more tools to master, image editing becomes tougher as everything becomes more refined.

With all this, I must thank Don and Manfred for the time and effort they put into teaching and treating the photo.
I revisited the file and ended up with the version bellow.

The image might look a bit different now, but I still like it, just like I've enjoyed all the versions you've created.
Now, I'll wait for the inks to arrive and print.

Once again, thank you for everything.

[DanK]

My unsolicited advice: learn to use the curve tool (called Tone Curve in Lightroom). It’s one of the most fundamental and essential editing tools, and it’s remarkably versatile. The TK panel masks are only masks, and you need to use adjustment tools like the curves tool to make use of those masks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I can't help but agree that the image Dan produced now is much brighter and more luminous than mine. Maybe I lean towards darker, denser images.

Believe it or not, I don't know how to work with curves, it's true. I've noticed the importance of this tool even on YouTube channels, how powerful it seems and how it can yield great results if used right.

Perhaps it's because I dedicated a lot to LR due to its evolution, but your suggestions and tips are pushing me to try and learn something about the Curves feature. In due time.

But now, with the TKPanel's automatic lighting levels add-on, things seem easier (though those curves are still waiting for me). However, with more and more tools to master, image editing becomes tougher as everything becomes more refined.

With all this, I must thank Don and Manfred for the time and effort they put into teaching and treating the photo.
I revisited the file and ended up with the version bellow.

The image might look a bit different now, but I still like it, just like I've enjoyed all the versions you've created.
Now, I'll wait for the inks to arrive and print.

Once again, thank you for everything.

The tools and techniques one uses are quite irrelevant, so long as you are happy with the end product.

I have had the opportunity to study under and with a number of high-end photographers and they all have different approaches to post-processing, including the tools that they prefer working with. Virtually everyone, outside of some event and wedding photographers, shoot raw. These folks need to start with a raw converter. A lot of them have switched to Capture One as their raw converter, although the majority still seem to prefer working with Lightroom. Adobe Camera Raw is the raw converter of choice for others.

Yes, people do use other brands; OnOne, Affinity Photo, Corel Paintshop Pro, etc, but none of the higher end photographers I know use these tools. There are a lot of people that work exclusively in either Lightroom or Capture One and (virtually) never move to Photoshop.

Where Photoshop excels is with its selection tools, which allows the photographer to fine tune small, specific areas of the image, primarily dodging and burning. While Lightroom and Capture One have this functionality, it is quite rudimentary and in my experience challenging to get the precision I am looking for. I estimate some 90% - 95% of the work I do on an image requires this level of fine adjustment (this matches up well with what other higher end retouchers tell me), so like them, I spend a lot of time in Photoshop. I do all my dodging and burning using curves and adjustment layers and I only use Photoshop's dodging and burning tools for some very specialized work (edits on layer masks).

This is all consistent with what we saw from the great masters of the past - Ansel Adams, Yousuf Karsh and Henri Cartier-Bresson (and many others) had a great deal of dodging and burning applied when their prints were produced.

[Manfred M]

My unsolicited advice: learn to use the curve tool (called Tone Curve in Lightroom). It’s one of the most fundamental and essential editing tools, and it’s remarkably versatile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 to that comment Dan. Curves are challenging to master, but once that has been achieved, this is one of the most powerful tools in the retoucher's "toolkit".

[The amateur]

You guys are the best. I've been through a few forums over the last 15/17 years, and Cambridge in Colour takes the cake.
I've been away for a while, but I'm back with a new profile, though I'm still the same old me.

Time to get that Curves Adjustment Tool ready because here I come !

Thanks again, everyone.

Have a great Sunday and may you all have a Christmas filled with presents under the tree.
But mainly, mainly: Health !!!
In English, you say cheers, right ?