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 · 2 versions
  
 
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 2 versions


I like the composition of this shot. The first version is now shown on the landscape forum. Some thing bothered me. I wanted more separation of the flowers and the background. Hence the second version. How would like it? which one? How would you PP differently if it was your picture?



nugeny 2013

Version one

  NIKON D800E    280mm    f/5.6    1/100s    2000 ISO    +0.7 EV  





nugeny 2013

version 2

  NIKON D800E    70.0-200.0 mm f/4.0 lens    280mm    f/5.6    1/100s    2000 ISO    +0.7 EV  




Apr 28, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 2 versions


I like the image but I think you went the wrong direction if your objective was to separate the branches from the background.

Generally speaking (there are exceptions), here are the elements that can help depth perception and separation:

Close / Far
-------------
High contrast / low contrast
High saturation / low saturation
Warm color / cool color
Bright / dark (or possibly reversed)

I think the biggest thing you could do in this case is to bring up the black level of the background, reducing the contrast. Secondarily, you could try adjusting color balance to make the branches/flowers neutral or warm and the background slightly cool. I would keep the background saturation fairly low as well.



Apr 28, 2013 at 07:37 PM
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · 2 versions


Eyeball wrote:
I like the image but I think you went the wrong direction if your objective was to separate the branches from the background.

Generally speaking (there are exceptions), here are the elements that can help depth perception and separation:

Close / Far
-------------
High contrast / low contrast
High saturation / low saturation
Warm color / cool color
Bright / dark (or possibly reversed)

I think the biggest thing you could do in this case is to bring up the black level of the background, reducing the contrast. Secondarily, you could try adjusting color balance to make the branches/flowers neutral or warm and the background slightly cool. I
...Show more

Thanks for chiming in. great suggestion. I will try it, but would you have time to give it a ty?
if so it would be great.



Apr 28, 2013 at 08:04 PM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · 2 versions


Hey Bob,

Very cool shots. I prefer the composition of #1, but I like how you captured the Merced in the background with a more gold tone to it. Having the color of the background with a more gold tone helps to set the blooms apart more too.

Also, with these shots, I don't think I would have shot them with 2/3rds of a stop of exposure compensation. First, the blooms themselves have lost a bit of detail because they are borderline too bright, which is easy to do with Dogwood blooms. And also, but not shooting it with the intent to overexpose the shot, would have then given you a faster shutterspeed. The Dogwood branches as you know move around alot very easily, it takes very little breeze to make them move. So the slightly faster shutter speed will help you in capturing the flowers sharp. The negative aspect of it, is for blurring out the river in the background, the slower you can go is usually better. But in the end, making sure you freeze the blooms and branches with no movement is very important.

Jim



Apr 28, 2013 at 08:24 PM
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 2 versions


nugeny wrote:
Thanks for chiming in. great suggestion. I will try it, but would you have time to give it a ty?
if so it would be great.


+1 @Eyeball re separation - just as a matter of fun, gave it a shot. Tough given the comparative size and delicacy of main subject compared to the mottled background but maybe it conveys the notion.

Also, way over-saturated - backing that off returns the bark to its normal color (well close anyway) rather than blue - unless that is what you wanted.

So, one stab...

Regards,

Bob







Edited on Apr 28, 2013 at 09:11 PM · View previous versions



Apr 28, 2013 at 09:05 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · 2 versions


You try playing with the gamma slider a Photoshop exposure layer. Better would be to take the required time to select just the foreground and invert to select the background to add an adjust layer to change the background gamma/exposure or apply a selective curves to darken the background, making the foreground pop by light/dark contrast.


Apr 28, 2013 at 09:05 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · 2 versions


As others have mentioned, there are various ways to create separation. They typically incorporate an element of push/pull perspective within a given attribute/characteristics.

I pulled back on some of the saturation (S&P to taste) in the yellow & blue channels to generate some separation. You could probably take it a bit further with some additional push/pull in other aspects as well, but generating appropriate masking could be a challenge.

Nothing to get too excited about, but simply to illustrate the desat @ the bg mostly as a means of creating separation.








Edited on Apr 29, 2013 at 05:36 AM · View previous versions



Apr 29, 2013 at 01:39 AM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · 2 versions


Version 2 looks much more pleasing to my eye.


Apr 29, 2013 at 02:13 AM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · 2 versions


Excellent thread. I am learning a lot here about strategies for "correction"
I think you did gain more separation in the second version, in part by playing the green leaves against some warmer, reddish tones in the background. But the background looks unrealistically saturated, and each of the subsequent reworks addresses that issue in one way or another, to various aesthetic advantages. If you want to warm the background I would dial back the saturation there in general, and especially with the background greens.
BTW, I really like the flow of the branches, leaves and flowers diagonally across the frame.

Scott


Edited on Apr 29, 2013 at 08:15 AM · View previous versions



Apr 29, 2013 at 02:25 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · 2 versions


Scott,

I tend to think more in terms of "drawing the eye" of your viewer to where you want them to go. That may or may not actually be a "correction" but rather an "adjustment".

Color correction to remove a cast may fall a bit more into the realm of "correction" but even that can be a highly subjective aspect related to the message that you want to convey to your viewer. Personally, I strive to neutralize/color correct most things first, then tone for mood after.

But whether or not you call it "correction" vs. "adjustment" ... the visual response from the viewer is still related to variance/harmony relationships @ push/pull and our utilization (in camera or pp) and ability to do so.



Apr 29, 2013 at 05:30 AM
sbeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · 2 versions


Adjustment is the more appropriate term, or modification.



Apr 29, 2013 at 08:16 AM
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · 2 versions


this is my new and "improved" version.



nugeny 2013

  NIKON D800E    70.0-200.0 mm f/4.0 lens    260mm    f/5.6    1/125s    2000 ISO    +0.7 EV  




Apr 29, 2013 at 04:37 PM
odnanref
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · 2 versions


The second picture works better, I would say, because of the tones. I think the background is significantly blurred in both images. However, the background in the second image is a bit more distracting because of the harsh colors.


Apr 29, 2013 at 09:00 PM
pinball_pw
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · 2 versions


Do you have a gold and blue polarizer? That was my first thought on a way to improve it. - Paul


May 01, 2013 at 12:49 AM
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · 2 versions


I reshot this very image yesterday with a new lens 300 f4
What do you think?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1209787/0#11525816



May 02, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · 2 versions


I just switched back and forth between the new one and your "new and improved" version from this thread, and I think I like the latter better. I like that you didn't chop off any of the upper leaves, and I like the river a bit better. Something about the darker shade of green in the leaves of the newer one just doesn't look as appealing to me - I don't know why.


May 02, 2013 at 08:21 PM
Bob Jarman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · 2 versions


Yes, agree latter is better, however prefer the last image (Dogwood) most.

Bob



May 02, 2013 at 08:31 PM
nugeny
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · 2 versions


Ernie Aubert wrote:
I just switched back and forth between the new one and your "new and improved" version from this thread, and I think I like the latter better. I like that you didn't chop off any of the upper leaves, and I like the river a bit better. Something about the darker shade of green in the leaves of the newer one just doesn't look as appealing to me - I don't know why.


"of green in the leaves of the newer one just doesn't look as appealing to me - I don't know why"{

Well, what is new, Ernie? That is why there are a many shades of colors as the number of people. It just happened that while PP the first picture, I was trying so hard to get more green to the leaves, but couldn't.

The French says: vive la difference! indeed. That is art.
thanks , I appreciate the discussion.
Bob



May 02, 2013 at 10:10 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password