Posted by Jeff Hackett on December 19, 2010 at 12:10 PM
I have been trying to get better at post processing and try new techniques. The first image is the newly processed with a light gaussian blur layer and some burning. The next one will be with the original processing using my pretty simple and straight foreward techniques. C&C definitely welcome and thanks for looking.
Posted by Jeff Hackett on December 19, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Here's the original processed image. After this afternoon I won't be able to respond until later in the week, since I'll be out of town working with no computer access. Thanks in advance for any comments and/or suggestions.
Posted by Jack Garrett on December 19, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Jeff, I like the technique of the first one...a lot!! It softens things very nicely. Well done!
Posted by Grant Collier on December 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM
I too like the effect. I think I'd like it more if you used a layer mask so that you don't do the effect on the mountains. I don't think having the mountains soft helps the image, but with the rest of the image it gives it sort of a wind-blown effect.
Posted by Jeff Hackett on December 19, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Thanks for the comments! Grant, I see what you're saying, maybe I should have hid the blur layer and revealed it with the brush tool every where but on the mountains. Thanks again.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on December 19, 2010 at 1:46 PM
That is a nice artistic blur effect, Jeff. I'm sure it would look great printed large on canvas.
The blur works nicely in this image, though I agree about leaving the mountains alone. Personally, I'd also try masking off the foreground sagebrush. It looks great in the trees and the sky! A subtle burn around the edges is a technique I use very often, almost unnoticeable if you're not too heavy-handed, but it really helps keep the eye in frame and focus the viewer's attention.
Posted by Don George on December 19, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Agree with leaving the mountains as is. Great blur effect on the foreground.
Posted by Dan Walters on December 19, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Love the first image. Like that bur.
Posted by John Mumaw on December 19, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Very nice effect!
I'm with the 'leave the mountains unblurred' crowd. Regardless of technique, I like the image you captured. Was the wind really howling as much as it looks?
Posted by Brian Jackson on December 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Great stuff, really gives that 3D effect.
Posted by Kane Engelbert on December 19, 2010 at 9:02 PM
A lot of these kinds of images use this effect to add movement to the clouds. I agree, the mountains just look out of focus to me, thus killing the image. Eliminating the blur just from the mountains and not from the foreground or sky seems like a lot of work to me. Sort of stretching the limits of post processing. Nice comp though.
Posted by Paul Wegemann on December 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM
I like this a lot. It's a nice interpretation of an often photographed place. I'd like to see a repost with the suggestion to leave the mountains alone, but I'm wondering if the blur/non-blur contrast between mtns and trees wouldn't be too much.
I think this is similar to the technique Marc Adamus uses, but his is in a more subtle way...usually. I can't see it being used to this degree though as it's very much overdone and I prefer the original un-Ortonized image you posted second.
I've tried something similar to this with varying results, but in the end I usually prefer an image without it. If you'd like a more subtle approach take the advice already given by others here. I'd go as far as removing it from everything but the trees and even then reduce the opacity to something like 15-25 percent. That way it's barely there, but still adds a tiny bit of glow without taking over. You could also run a curves adjustment or dodge further to bring it back to the same exposure as before. Some people seem to go mad over this...well a lot right now actually, but in the end I think realism will win over in this area at least.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on December 21, 2010 at 12:27 AM
I agree that the mountains should be sharper since they can be. I like the soft foreground but probably a little less than what you did. It does serve to drive focus of the eyes if that is what you're after. In this image, I think I'd prefer less foreground, more of a pano crop. Interesting technique though.
Posted by Stan Rose on December 21, 2010 at 11:28 PM
I think the problem with the second is that it looks a bit oversharpened or is suffering more from compression--which makes the softer version more appealing to the eye. I generally dont care for the whole blur or orton thing. It might make some jpeg look nicer, but for a larger print you inevitably lose detail--which is the very thing everyone wants more of, in general.
Posted by Darren Huski on December 22, 2010 at 8:00 AM
Sometimes that works really well and this is one of those times.
Cool image!
Posted by Jeff Hackett on December 24, 2010 at 7:24 AM
I am finally home. Thanks for all the input, I really appreciate it. Now that it has had time to settle with me, about four days, I think I was a little heavy handed with the effect. Again thanks for the C&C.
John, it wasn't windy at all, just a little breeze. I think the trees grow like that from constantly being beaten by the wind.
Discussion
17 repliesI'm with the 'leave the mountains unblurred' crowd. Regardless of technique, I like the image you captured. Was the wind really howling as much as it looks?
I've tried something similar to this with varying results, but in the end I usually prefer an image without it. If you'd like a more subtle approach take the advice already given by others here. I'd go as far as removing it from everything but the trees and even then reduce the opacity to something like 15-25 percent. That way it's barely there, but still adds a tiny bit of glow without taking over. You could also run a curves adjustment or dodge further to bring it back to the same exposure as before. Some people seem to go mad over this...well a lot right now actually, but in the end I think realism will win over in this area at least.
Cool image!
John, it wasn't windy at all, just a little breeze. I think the trees grow like that from constantly being beaten by the wind.