Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Thompson Creek Falls
  
 
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Thompson Creek Falls


OK, I'm the guy who asked if this was the right forum for evaluating photo processing. Here is my first image for critique. Most of the adjustments were made in ACR. In PS I blended two images primarily to the main waterfall, but also to the others. The purpose of the blend was to try to eliminate the blown out areas of the waterfall. I was almost successful. There was no sharpening at all. I'm open to any and all suggestions. I want to learn.




  NIKON D600    24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 lens    24mm    f/8.0    1/3s    100 ISO    -2.0 EV  



Edited on Feb 27, 2013 at 12:45 AM · View previous versions



Feb 26, 2013 at 11:17 PM
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Thompson Creek Falls


One thing I notice right off is that this image is more vivid or saturated than the same image in PS. Not sure why


Feb 26, 2013 at 11:20 PM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Thompson Creek Falls


I think you have a good, standard landscape shot there that has decent composition, color, exposure, and sharpness.

About the only minor suggestion that I would have in terms of post-processing is maybe trying a subtle vignette to boost the focus on the waterfall.

As I said, I think the composition is fine here but I kind of wish I could see a little more of the colorful trees. It makes me wonder if there was a possible vertical format shot there of the falls and up into the trees.

Really though I think to get something much more wow than this would take different light or a more impressive waterfall.

Good job. Look forward to seeing more of your work here on FM.

Regarding the difference in saturation, are you using a wide-gamut monitor? If so, you will want to use a fully color-managed browser like Firefox or Safari to match the color as you see in PS. You are also posting in the ProPhoto color space so some people may say the image sort of greenish and low contrast if they're not using a color-manage browser.



Feb 26, 2013 at 11:54 PM
AuntiPode
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Thompson Creek Falls


One easy technique to blend two images where the water in one its blown-out but the rest is OK and another with good water but darker remainder is to stack the images with the blown image on top. Then use the eraser tool to reveal the darker water below.


Feb 27, 2013 at 12:54 AM
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Thompson Creek Falls


OK Eyeball, glad you noticed the prophoto error. I forgot to convert to sRGB when I downsized it for the web. I'm trying to figure out how to upload a revised image, but haven't figured it out yet.

I am using a wide-gamut monitor (dell u2410) and I think I have color managed it correctly. Although there is no telling.....

I like the vignetting idea and as soon as I figure out how to do that..... I will give it a shot.

I tried some other perspectives and when I figure out how to add photos to the post, I will show some more. The left side of the fall was definitely more colorful, with some reds and whatnot, but I liked the "line" of the two falls that kind of faded into infinity towards the upper left of the image.

And I didn't want to cut the rock of the main falls off. For some reason, I felt that all of it needed to be there (same kinda logic for not cutting off arms or legs on a person...). And I could not back up any more - the next step back was about a 5 foot drop and then I would not have been able to see the plunge pool, etc. I wish I had a wider lens with me that day....

But as far as processing, it looks ok? Are you saying I could possibly increase the vibrance more? And do I need to sharpen it any? Especially if I was going to print it?



Feb 27, 2013 at 01:04 AM
AuntiPode
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Thompson Creek Falls


To a replace an image, click on the edit button, mark the current image to delete and select the new version to upload.

Here's a video that includes how to do arbitrary shaped vignettes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IioNDk75nc



Feb 27, 2013 at 01:32 AM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Thompson Creek Falls


JimKied wrote:
I am using a wide-gamut monitor (dell u2410) and I think I have color managed it correctly. Although there is no telling.....


What browser are you using?

JimKied wrote:
I like the vignetting idea and as soon as I figure out how to do that..... I will give it a shot.


If you're using ACR, you can use the post-crop vignetting on the effects tab. I would suggest keeping it subtle.

JimKied wrote:
But as far as processing, it looks ok? Are you saying I could possibly increase the vibrance more? And do I need to sharpen it any? Especially if I was going to print it?


Processing looks OK to me. You might be able to boost vibrance/saturation a little if you want but the yellows and oranges will probably start clipping if you need to convert to sRGB. Sharpening looks OK to me for display here. For printing, you can probably sharpen quite a bit more, particularly if printing on an inkjet.




Feb 27, 2013 at 01:36 AM
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Thompson Creek Falls


I use Google Chrome for my browser.

Regarding the difference in saturation, are you using a wide-gamut monitor? If so, you will want to use a fully color-managed browser like Firefox or Safari to match the color as you see in PS. You are also posting in the ProPhoto color space so some people may say the image sort of greenish and low contrast if they're not using a color-manage browser.

I am struggling to understand the concept of color management as it applies to the web. I do understand that only certain browsers are color managed and I also understand that the vast majority of people do not color manage their monitors (or even have monitors that can be reasonably color managed). But I am tripping up on determining the best way (workflow) to produce images for the web. Do I simply work on and image until I like what I see on my monitor and hope for the best when I upload it to the web? It seems to me that there should be some sort of logical science or process to ensure that someone can upload an image in sRGB and get what they want it to look like on the web.

For example when I look on the various FM photo forums, I see images that are so fantastic that I have to pick my jaw up off the floor. They don't look over saturated, under-saturated or whatever. I think I have a pretty good idea of whatever visualization they are trying to impart. So it kind of messes up my confidence when an image I upload doesn't look like I thought it would look like when I uploaded it. Is there some sort of trick to this?

I've added a revise photo of the above in sRGB (rather than Pro Photo. I've also added another shot of the same location but from a different perspective showing more of the left side of the falls. Note that I had to cut off the large rock and the falls do not "line up" as in the first image. I like the second for the colors, but the first for the composition. Would like to hear your thoughts.





  NIKON D600    24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 lens    24mm    f/8.0    1/3s    100 ISO    -2.0 EV  






  NIKON D600    24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 lens    24mm    f/2.8    1/5s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  




Feb 28, 2013 at 01:40 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Thompson Creek Falls


And they are both much more saturated than what I see. I know this is a browser issue. Is there something I should do to minimize this difference?


Feb 28, 2013 at 02:09 AM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Thompson Creek Falls


Regarding color management and the web, you can first break it down into:
A. Sending/posting the image
B. Viewing the sent/posted image

As a photographer, you have control over A but not over B, except in the very limited case of viewing on YOUR machine.

So the best you can do to fulfill your responsibility for A is to post an image with a known, standard color space. If you want the largest possible audience on the web to have the best chance of seeing your image as intended, I recommend using sRGB. The reasons for this suggestion are:
- Most people do not have wide-gamut monitors so they will not see the colors of the wide-gamut color spaces anyway.
- Many people still do not use color-managed browsers or are using color-managed browsers but do not have them configured correctly. Images with non-sRGB color spaces will look significantly off under these circumstances.

I also recommend that you always embed the standard color space inside the image because:
- it helps you see what color space you used after the fact if there is any doubt.
- it helps color-managed browsers understand what color space was used and interpret it correctly. Images without an embedded color space may not be properly color managed, even with a color-managed browser.

Now on to the "B" (viewing) part of the process. There are two possible functions of a color-managed browser:
1. The conversion FROM the embedded color space of the image.
2. The conversion TO the profile (unique color space) of your monitor.

1 is important if you are viewing images that have been posted in a non-sRGB color space.

2 is important if you want the viewed image to be adjusted for the characteristics of your particular monitor. 2 is particularly important for users of wide-gamut monitors like yourself since an image that is adjusted for sRGB, instead of your custom, wide-gamut profile, will look extra contrasty and saturated.

Until recently, only Firefox and Safari did an adequate job for both 1 and 2. Apparently, even the latest IE 10 still only does 1.

Until recently, Chrome only did 2, and I believe that was only for the Windows version and I was never sure that even the Windows version always worked as expected. Now I see that the latest versions of Chrome are now doing 1.

Based on your comments, it sounds like:
- You may be using an old version of Chrome or
- You are using Chrome on the Mac or
- You are using Chrome on Windows but the "2" function of color management is not enabled or not working.

If you are using Chrome on Windows, I suggest you take a look at the instructions on this linked page to see if you can activate the "2" function of color management so images are viewed using the same custom profile that Photoshop uses.

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2012/03/24/tip-enabling-color-management-in-google-chrome_art37325

If that doesn't work, you have the following alternatives:
- put up with extra contrast and saturated images on the web
- start using Firefox or Safari (I use Firefox)
- set your monitor to sRGB mode if your monitor has that option. Note that if you do that you are not using an extra feature that you paid for when you bought your monitor. You will also need to create a new profile for your monitor that is tuned to the sRGB mode.

These color management things are tricky and rather complicated. If you have any trouble with what I posted above, feel free to ask for help or clarification.

= = =

Regarding the last image you posted, I agree with you. It has nicer color but the slant of the rock shelf of the waterfall does tend to run my eye out of the frame. Still, like your first image, it is not a bad image at all.



Feb 28, 2013 at 02:11 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Thompson Creek Falls


JimKied wrote:
And they are both much more saturated than what I see. I know this is a browser issue. Is there something I should do to minimize this difference?



+1 @ Dennis, I won't add much there.
+1 @ Firefox Browser. I used Safari for a while a few years back, but I prefer the interface of Firefox

Do you have another PC/Monitor/phone/tablet that you can check things on. I just use another family member's or my Kindle whenever I'm in doubt of what others are seeing.

As to workflow ... I'd simply suggest work it however it works for you. Then simply EDIT>CONVERT PROFILE to sRGB for publishing to the web.
NOTE: There is a difference between ASSIGN PROFILE vs. CONVERT PROFILE.

When I use ASSIGN PROFILE (while editing), things can "change wildly" or nominally depending on the colors in the scene and the amount of "expansion/contraction" of the color spaces involved in the from/to. In my experience (not using wide gamut), whenever I CONVERT PROFILE to sRGB, I see very little change, as its purpose isn't to expand/contract the color space from one to another, but rather to emulate what you have in a different color profile.

When I convert to sRGB for publishing (especially a work in progress), I'll do a SAVE AS "filenamereva" or "filenameFM800px", etc. Then after doing the SAVE AS, I'll undo back to my working profile on those occasions when I flatten the file in the process (i.e. going from 16bit to 8 bit, etc.)

Takes more to explain ... but just go EDIT>CONVERT PROFILE and select sRGB. If it flattens, no worries, just SAVE AS, then UNDO. You could also save PSD prior to converting if you're concerned, but I've never had a problem getting back.



Feb 28, 2013 at 02:46 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Thompson Creek Falls


As to the pics ... both are looking good on my end (Firefox). I'm leaning toward a preference to the second one.

Compositionally, the tonal values of the water take me from the large falls into the frame and then past the foliage colors to the smaller falls at the edge of the frame. While that might be "at risk" of taking me out of the frame ... the weighting of the (foreshortened) foreground rocks pulls me back over, and then the tonal value & weighting of the larger falls brings me back up ... thus I get to take my trip around the scene and never leave.

The first has a similar movement, but it seems to be more centralized between the two falls and the rocks so it seems a bit less dynamic. But, then if I do get to the edges with the foreshortened rocks, I get kinda "stuck" and have to "back out" and "look at" the image starting over again. I'm a big fan of foreshortening, but the two rocks at lower left corner and bottom center are neither the focal point, nor serve as leading us to the focal point very much, so the weighting that foreshortening provides isn't doing as much for me in this case.

Also, by 'coming around' on your comp, I think it presents the two falls in better scale relationship to each other. In the first one, the foreshortening effect changes that relationship just a tad by strengthening the smaller one and weakening the larger one ... if that makes any sense.

The first one has an overall brighter tonal value than the second one. Wondering if you might bring up the second one just a tad to give it a lighter feel/mood.

All in all ... they both look good on my end ... wish I was there.

BTW ... curious @ f8 vs. f2.8



Feb 28, 2013 at 03:04 PM
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Thompson Creek Falls


Color management issues - I'll check on some of those things when I get back to my home computer. I'll look at firefox also.

RustyBug saidBTW ... curious @ f8 vs. f2.8

It was my first shot of the different compositions I took. Did not realize I was at f2.8. Wish I could have gone back and redo the pic. And taken my 16-35. But you make the best with what you have. All in all, I was surprised with the water flow at 2.8. Much better than I thought it would be. And the DOF was good enough at 2.8 too - didn't expect that either.

FWIW - I do use the convert to profile method. I gave up on SAVE FOR WEB - wanted more control over how it converted. My problem now is that I haven't set up an action yet and I frequently forget some of the hoops to jump through. I guess I just want to get satisfied with a particular workflow before I action it.



Eyeball wrote: So the best you can do to fulfill your responsibility for A is to post an image with a known, standard color space. If you want the largest possible audience on the web to have the best chance of seeing your image as intended, I recommend using sRGB.

You are not the first person to tell me to work in the sRGB space. I guess I have sort of resisted it because everything I read says that for processing, I should use the widest gamut space I can use. Which is why I use Pro Photo. It is definitely not because I am an expert and know better!!!

So how come all the so-called experts say we should use the wide-gamut spaces like aRGB or Pro Photo? What is their target that would demand those spaces rather than sRGB? Full disclosure, I'm in this for the hobby, so for me, I only see myself displaying on the web and in print - both of which are sRGB spaces. Inquiring minds want to know.....



Feb 28, 2013 at 06:33 PM
JimKied
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Thompson Creek Falls


And composition question. The second image. Does it bother you at all that the large ledge rock is cut off on the right? 'Cause I am trying to convince myself that I like the second one better also.

Thanks,



Feb 28, 2013 at 06:36 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Thompson Creek Falls


Gotcha @ first shot ... oops 2.8. Been there done that, I promise I'll do it again.

+1 @ 2.8 surprisingly sharp and good DOF for 2.8. That is part of the 24mm / shooting distance combination, I suppose, but it still surprised me a touch.

Rock cut off @ right ... what rock ... I'm too busy looking at the water, the colors and the foreground rocks.

When you're strong stuff is strong, you're little stuff is small potatoes.
When your strong stuff is weak, your little stuff looms large.

When you've got four aces in your hand, nobody cares if you've got a deuce to go with it ... it's a winning hand with either a deuce or a king tagging along. But if all you've got is a pair of jacks, having a bunch of little cards to go with them doesn't help things much.



Feb 28, 2013 at 07:25 PM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Thompson Creek Falls


JimKied wrote:
FWIW - I do use the convert to profile method. I gave up on SAVE FOR WEB - wanted more control over how it converted. My problem now is that I haven't set up an action yet and I frequently forget some of the hoops to jump through. I guess I just want to get satisfied with a particular workflow before I action it.


I'm not sure what extra control you wanted that you couldn't get with Save for Web. I find Save for Web handy for, well, saving for presentation on the web.

JimKied wrote:
You are not the first person to tell me to work in the sRGB space. I guess I have sort of resisted it because everything I read says that for processing, I should use the widest gamut space I can use. Which is why I use Pro Photo. It is definitely not because I am an expert and know better!!!


Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you have to use sRGB for your working space inside Photoshop. I often edit in ProPhoto also. What I am saying is that for presentation on the Web, the best color space is usually sRGB if your interest is the largest possible audience. I gave the reasons earlier why I believe this. You can either use Save for Web or Edit>Convert to Profile as a final step for the web image.

There can be several reasons why it is a good idea to edit in a larger color space. The most common reason in a traditional color managed workflow for a "pro", is so that he or she has a master PSD or TIF file that can then be used for a variety of output media. If they are printing to an inkjet with a wider gamut, they have a wide gamut master to take advantage of that. If they want a web image, they can either convert the master or use Save for Web. Pros usually want to keep their options open for as long as possible in their workflow so they don't have to go back and repeat steps.

Now whether ProPhoto is the best color space for editing in terms of quality, that is a bit trickier and is subject to some debate. If you know there is a possibility that you will need to output to a wide-gamut medium and you want to preserve all those colors, then ProPhoto is a way to do that. There is a possible downside in that ProPhoto spreads the color values apart in a way that can create banding but that can be largely avoided if you keep the file in 16-bit. Even using 16-bit though, I have ran into some photographers who prefer a smaller gamut color space like AdobeRGB because they feel it does a better job of retaining subtle tonal variations in things like skin.

Whatever you choose for editing though, does not have to impact what you post online. You can still convert to sRGB for that.





Feb 28, 2013 at 10:13 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password