Comments
Lovely scene, well captured Paul
Chris
Chris
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Nice view but it has a rather over processed look to it. The bush left and tree right don't actually add too much either. Its a great view but it could be a lot more. Could you post the RAW to let us see what you were playing with please.
Best regards
Mark
Best regards
Mark
I want to go walking there now looking at this image
Beautiful landscape and very well captured Paul 
Ricky.
Ricky.
Quote:Nice view but it has a rather over processed look to it. The bush left and tree right don't actually add too much either. Its a great view but it could be a lot more. Could you post the RAW to let us see what you were playing with please.
Best regards
Mark
Thanks for your comments Mark. It wasn't shot in RAW only JPEG. As I can only post one per day it can't be today. Used photoshop to reduce the highlights on the rock which (a bit like limestone-its granite actually- tends to reflect a lot of light). I increased the sat on the sky and the greens. Apart from a small amount of sharpening that's it. I agree the fg tree should have been off centre more and the one half on the right frame shouldn't be there. I appreciate your constructive comments. I have taken more on the same trip which are further back in my PF if you want to look. one was a pano of the valley. Paul
Great shot.well done.
Well composed
excellent landscape paul.ray
gorgeous landscape
Dennis
Dennis
Lovely capture.well done.
I agree with witchcraft that this looks a little over-processed. It's not a massive thing but it doesn't look quite right. I think the problem is that it looks a bit too contrasty and vivid for what I perceive the lighting conditions to be.
I think that a fairly small white balance problem has led you down the wrong path while editing. There are two clues that the white balance is off: the mountains are rather blue and the darker clouds, which should be grey, are also quite blue. The extra blueness decreases contrast and makes the greens less vividly green but increasing contrast and saturation doesn't address the root cause. (Sharpening works by increasing contrast locally.)
Setting the colour temperature to somewhere around 5,500–5,700K warms the blue out of the clouds and decreases it in the mountains. You can then tweak the saturation of the greens if you need to but, with less blue in them, they're already purer (i.e., more saturated) so you probably won't need to go as far. Sharpening at a smaller radius will give you sharpness without pushing up the contrast.
A quick explanation of sharpening and contrast. Unsharp mask has the effect of increasing contrast locally, i.e., darkening regions of shadow and lightening regions of highlight that are close together. However, the centre of a large shadow is far from any highlights so it's not affected. Across the whole image, the darkness of shadows and brightness of highlights remains roughly the same; it's only small regions close to each other, or the boundaries of larger regions that are altered. When you sharpen with a small radius (one or two pixels), this is perceived mostly as an increase in sharpness because it picks out boundaries and makes them more distinct. But if you sharpen at a larger radius, the effect is to darken shadows of about that size and lighten highlights of about that size, which is seen as an increase in contrast, as it's affecting more than just boundaries. You can use this to your advantage: USM with small radius and fairly high strength sharpens; with larger radius and smaller strength, it increases contrast but in a way that you can control quite precisely.
I think that a fairly small white balance problem has led you down the wrong path while editing. There are two clues that the white balance is off: the mountains are rather blue and the darker clouds, which should be grey, are also quite blue. The extra blueness decreases contrast and makes the greens less vividly green but increasing contrast and saturation doesn't address the root cause. (Sharpening works by increasing contrast locally.)
Setting the colour temperature to somewhere around 5,500–5,700K warms the blue out of the clouds and decreases it in the mountains. You can then tweak the saturation of the greens if you need to but, with less blue in them, they're already purer (i.e., more saturated) so you probably won't need to go as far. Sharpening at a smaller radius will give you sharpness without pushing up the contrast.
A quick explanation of sharpening and contrast. Unsharp mask has the effect of increasing contrast locally, i.e., darkening regions of shadow and lightening regions of highlight that are close together. However, the centre of a large shadow is far from any highlights so it's not affected. Across the whole image, the darkness of shadows and brightness of highlights remains roughly the same; it's only small regions close to each other, or the boundaries of larger regions that are altered. When you sharpen with a small radius (one or two pixels), this is perceived mostly as an increase in sharpness because it picks out boundaries and makes them more distinct. But if you sharpen at a larger radius, the effect is to darken shadows of about that size and lighten highlights of about that size, which is seen as an increase in contrast, as it's affecting more than just boundaries. You can use this to your advantage: USM with small radius and fairly high strength sharpens; with larger radius and smaller strength, it increases contrast but in a way that you can control quite precisely.
Quote:I agree with witchcraft that this looks a little over-processed. It's not a massive thing but it doesn't look quite right. I think the problem is that it looks a bit too contrasty and vivid for what I perceive the lighting conditions to be.
I think that a fairly small white balance problem has led you down the wrong path while editing. There are two clues that the white balance is off: the mountains are rather blue and the darker clouds, which should be grey, are also quite blue. The extra blueness decreases contrast and makes the greens less vividly green but increasing contrast and saturation doesn't address the root cause. (Sharpening works by increasing contrast locally.)
Setting the colour temperature to somewhere around 5,500–5,700K warms the blue out of the clouds and decreases it in the mountains. You can then tweak the saturation of the greens if you need to but, with less blue in them, they're already purer (i.e., more saturated) so you probably won't need to go as far. Sharpening at a smaller radius will give you sharpness without pushing up the contrast.
A quick explanation of sharpening and contrast. Unsharp mask has the effect of increasing contrast locally, i.e., darkening regions of shadow and lightening regions of highlight that are close together. However, the centre of a large shadow is far from any highlights so it's not affected. Across the whole image, the darkness of shadows and brightness of highlights remains roughly the same; it's only small regions close to each other, or the boundaries of larger regions that are altered. When you sharpen with a small radius (one or two pixels), this is perceived mostly as an increase in sharpness because it picks out boundaries and makes them more distinct. But if you sharpen at a larger radius, the effect is to darken shadows of about that size and lighten highlights of about that size, which is seen as an increase in contrast, as it's affecting more than just boundaries. You can use this to your advantage: USM with small radius and fairly high strength sharpens; with larger radius and smaller strength, it increases contrast but in a way that you can control quite precisely.
Thanks Richard that helps a great deal. I thought I understood contrast, sharpening and the unsharp mask but you've clarified one or two points. Paul
