Posted by Chris Ebright on July 13, 2006 at 12:42 PM
I just got some scans done by Rich V., and so now I am able to pull some shadow detail out of some shots that I have been on the fence about. This one was kind of an experiment as I had to stack two 2-stop ND Grads in order to hold back the sky on this one. But I also did some dodging on the hills in the background as I ended up with my grad line a little low in the shot. But the colors of the foreground brush was so great and with the drama of the sunset, I can't tell if I want to like this picture, or if I actually do?! Anyways, just wondering people's honest opinions on whether this shot works or not. Thanks.
Details: Looking west from west side of Kebler Pass last fall.
Shen-Hao 4x5, 90mm, forgot exposure, 2 2-stop grad ND's
Posted by Todd Caudle on July 13, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Well, this jpeg is over-sharpened to the point of being a little hard to stare at, despite the inherent beauty of the image. I'll bet the original 4x5 trans is awesome.
Note the halos around the horizon lines, and the jumbled details in the foreground. Did you use the shadow/highlight feature in PS, or did you manually dodge the FG? I would consider warming up the FG a bit, take a little blue out of it.
Posted by Chris Ebright on July 13, 2006 at 12:58 PM
thanks for the input Todd. I always have a hard time with sharpening on low-res web images. sounds like this shot might be a little over-processed to be accurately critiqued. I will see if I can spend a little more time with it later and re-post.
The highlights look a little blown. And I agree with the sharpening. I didnt apply any sharpening to the original scan.
What I always do with the scans is simply work with them to get the pic right at the max size I will be making (after cleaning etc). Then to make the web pic I flatten and use just bicubic sharpener with the resize at 72dpi and whatever size.
Rich,
That looks really good, and I always feel that most of my images posted to the web just leave something to be desired, while I see photos like your post that look really clean. But i don't think my technique is terrible, like you, i get the image the way I want it at full resolution, then resize to a reasonable web size (~600 pix length), then sharpen in the nieghborhood of 50-100% and 1-1.5 on the radius and 1 on the threshhold. now, after some searching of other threads i have noticed that i may be over doing it on the radius, but even taking this into account i still can't get that clean look like yours or others around here.
Personally (if it were mine – and I wish it was ) I would dodge (darken) the lower right and left corners. This would draw the viewer’s eye back into the center of the image.
Posted by Brett Deacon on July 13, 2006 at 4:07 PM
This is a beautiful shot Chris! Nice work retaining that foreground detail without blowing out the sky. Not that I am qualified to critique work like this, but since you asked….
This image looks like the shadow/highlight feature in PS was used a bit too aggressively. I am often guilty of this since it is so gratifying to pull out all that shadow detail. The risk is for the resulting image to look somewhat unnatural. It's hard to define exactly how much is too much, but I can generally notice when I've passed the point of what looks natural. I agree with Rene that it might help to darken the bottom corners. I might darken the foreground foliage some too, but I'd be careful not to dull the colors (perhaps consider using the brightness/contrast tool, subtracting brightness while adding some contrast). Lastly, with regard to sharpening for the web, I get the best results with an amount of around 150% and a small radius like 0.5.
I can't stop my eyes from bouncing back and forth between the dodged hazy blue far hills and overly sharpened FG. If they weren't so distracting to me, I'm sure that I'd appreciate the obvious beauty of the image. I've found that when you try to increase the exposure or dodge distant hills that are of a dark green/blackish hue, the lack of color information winds up rendering as a grayish blue tinge. That's what I see there. While the dreaded halo isn't as apparent to me on my work LCD as it is to Todd, overall the image just has an overly surreal look to it.
I LOVE your image of the gossips. In fact I'm sitting her cursing myself for being afraid to stray off the road in Arches for fear that someone my rat me out as a "cryptobiotic soil murderer!!!"
The only nit I have, and this me be exclusively a low-res phenomenon, is the apparent halo around the gossips against the deep blue sky.
Discussion
10 repliesDetails: Looking west from west side of Kebler Pass last fall.
Shen-Hao 4x5, 90mm, forgot exposure, 2 2-stop grad ND's
Note the halos around the horizon lines, and the jumbled details in the foreground. Did you use the shadow/highlight feature in PS, or did you manually dodge the FG? I would consider warming up the FG a bit, take a little blue out of it.
The highlights look a little blown. And I agree with the sharpening. I didnt apply any sharpening to the original scan.
What I always do with the scans is simply work with them to get the pic right at the max size I will be making (after cleaning etc). Then to make the web pic I flatten and use just bicubic sharpener with the resize at 72dpi and whatever size.
Here's an example (I couldnt resist posting one )
RichieV
Wisner 4x5
Schneider 110mm XL
Fuji Provia
500MB Howtek Drumscan (as original)
That looks really good, and I always feel that most of my images posted to the web just leave something to be desired, while I see photos like your post that look really clean. But i don't think my technique is terrible, like you, i get the image the way I want it at full resolution, then resize to a reasonable web size (~600 pix length), then sharpen in the nieghborhood of 50-100% and 1-1.5 on the radius and 1 on the threshhold. now, after some searching of other threads i have noticed that i may be over doing it on the radius, but even taking this into account i still can't get that clean look like yours or others around here.
Darn, I must've been outta B/W film again.
I hate it when that happens!
RichieV
Great photograph!!!
Personally (if it were mine – and I wish it was
This image looks like the shadow/highlight feature in PS was used a bit too aggressively. I am often guilty of this since it is so gratifying to pull out all that shadow detail. The risk is for the resulting image to look somewhat unnatural. It's hard to define exactly how much is too much, but I can generally notice when I've passed the point of what looks natural. I agree with Rene that it might help to darken the bottom corners. I might darken the foreground foliage some too, but I'd be careful not to dull the colors (perhaps consider using the brightness/contrast tool, subtracting brightness while adding some contrast). Lastly, with regard to sharpening for the web, I get the best results with an amount of around 150% and a small radius like 0.5.
Brett
My opinions...
I can't stop my eyes from bouncing back and forth between the dodged hazy blue far hills and overly sharpened FG. If they weren't so distracting to me, I'm sure that I'd appreciate the obvious beauty of the image. I've found that when you try to increase the exposure or dodge distant hills that are of a dark green/blackish hue, the lack of color information winds up rendering as a grayish blue tinge. That's what I see there. While the dreaded halo isn't as apparent to me on my work LCD as it is to Todd, overall the image just has an overly surreal look to it.
I LOVE your image of the gossips. In fact I'm sitting her cursing myself for being afraid to stray off the road in Arches for fear that someone my rat me out as a "cryptobiotic soil murderer!!!"
The only nit I have, and this me be exclusively a low-res phenomenon, is the apparent halo around the gossips against the deep blue sky.