What would you do to this photo to make it better?
I'm not happy with the darkness in the trees on the right or under the main bush in the foreground, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to correct. I only have Elements 5.0, and I've never blended images before. When I boost exposure of the image, there's some detail available in the dark areas.
Is there too much sky?
Should I crop off right below the main greenery?
Is Hallett too saturated?
I hope you shoot in RAW. If not I would highly recommend doing so for this particular reason. You will get maximum image data and latitude from a RAW file. If this were my image here is what I would do.
1. Perform two RAW conversions: One for the main image which you have already done and one for the shadows. Bump up exposure compensation. Usually RAW has about 1-1.5 stops of latitude to work with. For this one you only need .5-1 stop to bring out some of the shadow detail.
2. Open both conversions in PS. Copy and paste the 'brighter' conversion into a layer of the main version. Then simply draw around the dark area > feather > delete the rest of the layer which you don't need. This will leave you only the brightened tree area. Now simply adjust the opacity to taste.
3. Use Shadow/Highlight tool to bring out the shadows in a seperate copy layer. Adjust opcacity to taste.
4. Remember shadows 'should' look darker than areas in the sun. The main goal is to more accurately represent the greater dynamic range that the eye sees from shaded areas to sun.
** Note: I do not know how much of this can be done in the latest PS Elements. PSCS may be worth the investment for you if getting more into digital photography.
I'd crop it tighter - crop out the trees on the right, the bottom just below the green patch on the right, and maybe a liitle off the top to balance. Darken the lower area a little (as per Derek), and cut the saturation a little. Sorry for the verbal, couldn't work with the photo. Great shot though, beautiful place.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments! Dan, I'll give your cropping advice a try and tone down the sat. Derek, that's a great tutorial, and I appreciate the link and your advice. I do shoot RAW and have performed multiple conversions of this image at various exposures looking for the most natural looking shadow areas, but I was having trouble with the combination. I tried using the magic wand to select for the trees, copied and pasted, and aligned, but it didn't look right.
Posted by Lance Warley on July 19, 2007 at 8:29 AM
Chad, I have Elements 5 too. Derek's advice works for sure. Here's another way to do the same thing in PSE for Derek's step 2: Instead of drawing a selection and feathering/deleting, you can use the eraser with a soft-edged brush to achieve the same seamless effect.
And also, you can download this free layer mask plug-in to do it with a mask. Mask plug-in
The mask approach is the most forgiving and most flexible, because you can easily change things. If you wish, drop me a note and I'll call you to talk you through it.
As a fellow PSE user, which puts us in the vast minority in this forum, I'm with you all the way. Perhaps we should form a support group - PSE for the unwashed masses.
Chad it sounds like you are almost there. In step 2 I use the Lasso tool rather than the magic wand. Then you can experiment with different feather amounts before deleting. This is in effect the same kind of effect as using a GND.
Once you get used to layer/lasso/feather/delete this can be used for many other targeted touch ups. For example you can do:
* Targeted sharpening (eyes of an animal/person)
* Problem areas, overly bright reflections on water, sky, etc...
* Targeted levels, saturation, etc....
The key is that almost 'any' adjustment in PS can be isolated/targeted using layers. I am sure this can be done with masks as well as Lance mentioned. I just prefer using layers because I use them for every image anyway (all sharpening, levels, curves, shadows/highlights, etc...). Every adjustment I put into its own layer which can then adjusted via opacity. Hope this helps.
Thanks again, guys. I'm trying your suggestions, and my first attempt looks like crap when I look at it at 100%. I copied the bright image to make a layer for the primary image and used the eraser to remove the parts I don't need, and I like the way the process works. However, the images didn't line up perfectly, so there are some fuzzy areas where the layer remains. Anyway, I'm sure it takes practice, so I'm going to keep at it.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on July 19, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Chad,
If you have made multiple conversions of the 'same' raw image they should match up perfectly. They are in every way the same image (exception conversion adjustments of course).
Just select all (Ctrl-A), copy (Ctl-C) and paste (Ctl-V) the entire image into the other duplicate image (the original conversion above). This should automatically create a new layer perfectly aligned with the original. Then tweak away.
If you are referring to the fact that there is a 'visible' line between the two layer (eg - not seamless) that is where the right amount of feathering comes in. If using the eraser tool it may be opacity (not sure). That is why I prefer feathering > cutting. Feathering allows the 'grad' to be tuned (hard, medium, soft).
Chad, I also have Elements 5. I would suggest picking up a copy of "The Photshop Elements 5 book" by Scott Kelby. It has lots of tips, tricks and "practically hold your hand" tutorials. It even has some workarounds to mimick some features found in Photoshop and a really slick method of doing B&W conversions (not the stock PSE5 menu method). It really sped up my learning curve. That will be a really nice photograph when you get it get it all worked out.
John
Chad - nice image here. I played around in PS CS with it - I don't see any detail available in those trees on the right, at least none that can be made to look natural. If it were mine, I'd leave them silhouetted. You could also crop them out as suggested, and still have a nice composition. I left them in this rework for the heckuva it, though I did crop down to eliminate a little sky and reduce the impact of the trees.
I think the image as a whole could be lightened up a little. I essentially used the same approach that Derek described, but didn't bother trying to pull detail out of the trees. I created two layers - one as you have it here and a 2nd that's a stop or so brighter. I put the dark layer on top and adjusted the opacity of the entire image, letting some of the brighter image come through until it looked about right. That opened up the shadow below the bush a little; anything more and it starts to look unnatural to my eye. Then just a little selective dodging and burning to tweak certain areas, and a final saturation adjustment to restore what had been lost in brightening the image (which is maybe a little less than the original).
Another approach that's less complex... you could probably play with levels and curves, and not have to mess with layers at all. Opening the original in PS, selecting Levels, and moving the middle slider to the left (to a value of 1.15 - 1.2) helps open up the shadows and darker areas without touching the areas that are close to blowing out. Some local adjustments after that creates pretty much the same image as the process above.
John, thanks for the book recommendation - sounds like just what I need.
Rick, thanks for the tips. I hadn't thought of using two complete layers and an opacity adjustment. You guys are full of good ideas! I agree that the whole image needs to be a tad lighter, and I now have several working copies with different adjustments.
Discussion
10 repliesWhat would you do to this photo to make it better?
I'm not happy with the darkness in the trees on the right or under the main bush in the foreground, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to correct. I only have Elements 5.0, and I've never blended images before. When I boost exposure of the image, there's some detail available in the dark areas.
Is there too much sky?
Should I crop off right below the main greenery?
Is Hallett too saturated?
Feel free to manipulate.
Rebel XT
17-40
20mm at f22
.8 sec.
3-stop gnd
The one method which has helped me the most is this tutorial by Jesse S.:
http://www.jessespeer.com/making_the_image/2004_0712_chasm/index.html
I hope you shoot in RAW. If not I would highly recommend doing so for this particular reason. You will get maximum image data and latitude from a RAW file. If this were my image here is what I would do.
1. Perform two RAW conversions: One for the main image which you have already done and one for the shadows. Bump up exposure compensation. Usually RAW has about 1-1.5 stops of latitude to work with. For this one you only need .5-1 stop to bring out some of the shadow detail.
2. Open both conversions in PS. Copy and paste the 'brighter' conversion into a layer of the main version. Then simply draw around the dark area > feather > delete the rest of the layer which you don't need. This will leave you only the brightened tree area. Now simply adjust the opacity to taste.
3. Use Shadow/Highlight tool to bring out the shadows in a seperate copy layer. Adjust opcacity to taste.
4. Remember shadows 'should' look darker than areas in the sun. The main goal is to more accurately represent the greater dynamic range that the eye sees from shaded areas to sun.
** Note: I do not know how much of this can be done in the latest PS Elements. PSCS may be worth the investment for you if getting more into digital photography.
I'd crop it tighter - crop out the trees on the right, the bottom just below the green patch on the right, and maybe a liitle off the top to balance. Darken the lower area a little (as per Derek), and cut the saturation a little. Sorry for the verbal, couldn't work with the photo. Great shot though, beautiful place.
dan
And also, you can download this free layer mask plug-in to do it with a mask. Mask plug-in
The mask approach is the most forgiving and most flexible, because you can easily change things. If you wish, drop me a note and I'll call you to talk you through it.
As a fellow PSE user, which puts us in the vast minority in this forum, I'm with you all the way. Perhaps we should form a support group - PSE for the unwashed masses.
Once you get used to layer/lasso/feather/delete this can be used for many other targeted touch ups. For example you can do:
* Targeted sharpening (eyes of an animal/person)
* Problem areas, overly bright reflections on water, sky, etc...
* Targeted levels, saturation, etc....
The key is that almost 'any' adjustment in PS can be isolated/targeted using layers. I am sure this can be done with masks as well as Lance mentioned. I just prefer using layers because I use them for every image anyway (all sharpening, levels, curves, shadows/highlights, etc...). Every adjustment I put into its own layer which can then adjusted via opacity. Hope this helps.
- Derek
Thanks again, guys. I'm trying your suggestions, and my first attempt looks like crap when I look at it at 100%. I copied the bright image to make a layer for the primary image and used the eraser to remove the parts I don't need, and I like the way the process works. However, the images didn't line up perfectly, so there are some fuzzy areas where the layer remains. Anyway, I'm sure it takes practice, so I'm going to keep at it.
If you have made multiple conversions of the 'same' raw image they should match up perfectly. They are in every way the same image (exception conversion adjustments of course).
Just select all (Ctrl-A), copy (Ctl-C) and paste (Ctl-V) the entire image into the other duplicate image (the original conversion above). This should automatically create a new layer perfectly aligned with the original. Then tweak away.
If you are referring to the fact that there is a 'visible' line between the two layer (eg - not seamless) that is where the right amount of feathering comes in. If using the eraser tool it may be opacity (not sure). That is why I prefer feathering > cutting. Feathering allows the 'grad' to be tuned (hard, medium, soft).
John
I think the image as a whole could be lightened up a little. I essentially used the same approach that Derek described, but didn't bother trying to pull detail out of the trees. I created two layers - one as you have it here and a 2nd that's a stop or so brighter. I put the dark layer on top and adjusted the opacity of the entire image, letting some of the brighter image come through until it looked about right. That opened up the shadow below the bush a little; anything more and it starts to look unnatural to my eye. Then just a little selective dodging and burning to tweak certain areas, and a final saturation adjustment to restore what had been lost in brightening the image (which is maybe a little less than the original).
Another approach that's less complex... you could probably play with levels and curves, and not have to mess with layers at all. Opening the original in PS, selecting Levels, and moving the middle slider to the left (to a value of 1.15 - 1.2) helps open up the shadows and darker areas without touching the areas that are close to blowing out. Some local adjustments after that creates pretty much the same image as the process above.
Rick, thanks for the tips. I hadn't thought of using two complete layers and an opacity adjustment. You guys are full of good ideas! I agree that the whole image needs to be a tad lighter, and I now have several working copies with different adjustments.