Critique My Image

WestEndFoto

End of the Earth, Portugal, 2015



There is a very significant difference between this image and the raw file. In Lightroom I added contrast and blacks. When I started dodging the cliffs and sky, the colours starting coming out. After a little burning, it was surprisingly close to this. I then adjusted some hue sliders which have created some subtle differences, such as making the ocean a little deeper of a blue and the cliffs less yellow. Finally I increased saturation to +15 (out of 100) and increased overall exposure by a half stop.

The cliffs were naturally yellow from the setting sun, but somehow this did not look congruous with the hazy clouds in the distance which is typical of this unique place. It was my third trip here since 2001.

Thoughts?

spraynpray

I'd say that you got this one about right Jeff. The rock strata and the lack of a clearly defined horizon does make the image seem a little skewed, but I am sure that is an optical illusion. Unless those two blokes are known to you, I would crop off the one on the right as the right is of no interest, but the guy in the centre gives scale to the image. All in all, I like this edit.

WestEndFoto

I processed this one a second time from my original edit a few months back. This time I spent time working with hues and did saturation last. Up until a couple of months ago, I rarely paid attention to hues. I also came to the same conclusion regarding the figure on the right but I don't want to crop the image as I think that will subtract from the image. I will clone it out, which means Photoshop to do that properly (I did this one in Lightroom).

spraynpray

That extreme right edge doesn't do anything for the image. Try cropping it in lightroom - you can always undo it. Lightroom's spot removal tool may be good enough to lose him if you really want to keep the right hand edge though. I often use it. You can grab the balloon that has the intended replacement pixels in and move it around and usually improve the finished clone. Takes 60 seconds at most.

WestEndFoto

Yeah, the with the background it is not obvious that I did that unless I know what to look for. And it really only did take 60 seconds.

WestEndFoto

Not my image. But what do you guys think of this one?

Mods, not sure if I have violated Terms of Use here. Here is the link if I have and you want to delete the image.

https://500px.com/photo/150143805/erosion-by-dylan-toh-marianne-lim?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=591737

donaldejose

I like it very much. I like the colors. However, my first impression would be to cut off some of the blank ocean on the left. There is too much of nothingness on the left. To me the subject is the cliffs/islands and only enough of the sea should be shown to indicate that the main subject is by the sea. Also, it would be better to take the photo at the opposite end of the day when the sun would illuminate the faces of the cliffs instead of putting them into shadow.

Paperman

Though the colors are nice, the image has that "plastic" unnatural look suggesting too much touching ... Same effect when one applies a bit too much noise reduction when there is excessive noise, and details are washed off.

It may also be because we are really looking at a reduced size image.

Agree with too much ocean on left ...

s.smith

Splendid series of photography

s.smith

vtc2002 said:

The following image is a image that I would like to throw out there for feedback. I took this shot for my daughter earlier this week because she needed a image for a banner for a competition that she is entering in a few weeks. This only has adjustments for the lens and whatever Flickr adds in the uploading process (one of the things I do not like about Flickr). It was taken with my D810, 70-200mm f2.8 at 150mm, f 5.6 at 1/320 sec and ISO 64. She wanted a image of her horse Boe with his tail extended and in a full canter, those were her only requirements. What would you guys recommend to improve the image? I have my thoughts but would like to see your thoughts.

Fantastic!!!!

Fantastic shot!!! Really nice!

s.smith

WestEndFoto said:

End of the Earth, Portugal, 2015



There is a very significant difference between this image and the raw file. In Lightroom I added contrast and blacks. When I started dodging the cliffs and sky, the colours starting coming out. After a little burning, it was surprisingly close to this. I then adjusted some hue sliders which have created some subtle differences, such as making the ocean a little deeper of a blue and the cliffs less yellow. Finally I increased saturation to +15 (out of 100) and increased overall exposure by a half stop.

The cliffs were naturally yellow from the setting sun, but somehow this did not look congruous with the hazy clouds in the distance which is typical of this unique place. It was my third trip here since 2001.

Thoughts?

Love this, love your editing...beautiful model, beautiful capture!

spraynpray

?? what model ??

donaldejose

Model: the naked woman bottom center. How could you miss her?

spraynpray

@WestEndFoto: That image is very good. The colours have impact and the long exposure plus raking light team up to make it 'other worldy'. It would make it into a regional comp in my federation.

s.smith

donaldejose said:

How do you fix a face like this guitar player when the band's colored lights are projecting two different colors on his face?

Stunning shots! They are all deserving of a great big WOW!!!

Msmoto

In any photograph I shoot I want the final appearance to be seen like my "brain" sees it. When viewing the live presentation my brain corrects for deep shadows, variations in color sources, differences in people's skin color, anything which because of the camera's inability to "think" my brain does automatically.

I use Lightroom 5.7 only. The variations in color temperature can be corrected using the retouching brush, covering an area and very carefully erasing the effect until I have it the way I want it.

Here is a recent example of pre and post processing:




When viewed together, the edited copy appears way over processed, but when viewed each alone, it is the presentation i like as the engine itself comes more to life....IMO of course..

Paperman

Not overprocessed at all MsMoto ....

It looks like I am not alone in thinking Nikon does not do a good job in colour / white balance under late afternoon sunlit scenes.... Always too warm. Jpegs out of camera hardly usable as is. I even have to tweak family shots at that hour.

One wonders if it is a common error with every brand - that is shots being unnaturally warm as sun goes down on the horizon due to WB messing up - or is it only a Nikon thing ...

spraynpray

Hmmm, well there is a big swing in temp at the ends of the day, so if you are using a preset value, I would say it is normal but if you use auto I would have thought it would be close(r)?

Ironheart

I'm sure @Msmoto was shooting raw, hence the WB was the LR preset, nothing to do with the camera.

I do notice that photos of people "warm up" in the golden hour, but isn't that how they look at that time anyway?

Capt_Spaulding

@MM. Your first sentence reflects my thoughts exactly. I'm still a metaphorical infant as far as getting to that point, but that is the goal. Thanks

Msmoto

I shoot RAW 14 bit lossless compressed, auto WB, and really do not have any concerns over the color initially as I choose my final WB based upon what I want.....the morning train shot was intended to be warm.

Another point I think may be true in the way I do it, reds can often be oversaturated, so I go into Lightroom and reduce the red and orange, sometimes yellow, luminance and saturation.

Playing with the luminance and saturation of the individual colors can make a big difference in getting to the final product.

spraynpray

Ironheart said:

I'm sure @Msmoto was shooting raw, hence the WB was the LR preset, nothing to do with the camera.

I do notice that photos of people "warm up" in the golden hour, but isn't that how they look at that time anyway?

@Ironheart: The WB setting in camera is the starting point for the .NEF. What I am saying is that auto WB will give a more neutral look to the image as a starting point.

BTW I also don't subscribe to the belief that any WB is achievable from any .nef no matter what the in-camera setting. I believe that an 'aim close philosophy' gives a better end result. I haven't done an exhaustive test on that, but my belief comes from shots taken with accidental wrong WB settings in-camera rescued later.

I also think that Msmoto was giving interpretation to the out of camera shot rather than high fidelity to the original scene.

Paperman

spraynpray said:

Hmmm, well there is a big swing in temp at the ends of the day, so if you are using a preset value, I would say it is normal but if you use auto I would have thought it would be close(r)?

Nope, Auto ISO and I have consistently seen too warm, orange cast, highly saturated reds ( as MsMoto has expressed ) especially on faces ( in family/kids JPEGS ) during last hours of sunlight. Whatever works till that time of the day or after sunset/at night does not work during the hour or two before sunset ... I can say those have been always my most miserable shots. If I am shooting at that hour, I tweak the WB towards "b3" or" b4" to compensate.

Not a real issue of course when shooting RAW.

Ironheart

@spraynpray Hate to be a party pooper, but the WB setting has exactly zero effect on the raw file. Try it if you don't believe me. Take two shots one with 3000K and one with 10000K, pull them up in LR and set the WB to 5000K. They will be exactly the same.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf

However, when you’re shooting raw, this white balance is saved only as an EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) metadata tag. In fact, when you’re shooting raw, the only camera setting that will have a significant impact on the raw capture is the camera’s ISO setting.

https://photographylife.com/what-is-white-balance

3) Should you change WB in camera or during post-processing?

One of the great things about digital photography, is that we no longer really have to use white cards and cast-removing filters in order to get accurate colors. If you shoot in RAW format, the RAW image can be converted to any white balance, because this information is only saved as a reference and the original image stays untouched and unprocessed by the camera. This means that as long as you shoot in RAW, you can simply ignore the settings and shoot in any WB mode.

spraynpray

I'll get back to you Drew.