Challenge - Optimise this

[StuartRae]

Hello Everyone,

As a result of my post in the HDR Tone Mapping thread, Asher has suggested I issue this challenge.

Using the RAW converter and PP software of your choice, do your best with this shot (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010.zip)

If I'd known it would escalate to this extent, I'd have chosen a better photo! In reality, it's a bit like making a silk purse........ But what's done is done.

What I'm aiming for is to bring out the detail in the stone wall, bushes and foreground shadow, and to see what's on the other side of the gate, while preserving the sky and clouds.

I suggest in order to save bandwidth for those with slower connections that files are limited to 800x600 medium quality jpegs.

No prize was mentioned, but a nice bottle of vin rouge would go down well ;-)

Regards,

Stuart

[Don Lashier]

sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010.zip"]this shot[/URL]

If I'd known it would escalate to this extent, I'd have chosen a better photo! In reality, it's a bit like making a silk purse........ But what's done is done.

This image is perfect for the purpose at hand. It doesn't need to be a work of art, just a good example of problems encountered, which this is.

In the spirit of evaluating plug-ins and methods I'd suggest that time spent working on the image be limited to 10 minutes or so. In any case, posters should give an estimate of the time they spent.

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

There is a prize. I'll post the list to choose from.

asher

[StuartRae]

I'd suggest that time spent working on the image be limited to 10 minutes or so.

To set the goal posts, it took me no more than 15 minutes to produce all 5 examples in my original post.

Stuart

[Asher Kelman]

Although I like speed, if the picture is important, speed may not always be. So I'd be happy with the best result for the least effort.

Asher

[Andrew Rodney]

How should we send em?

[Don Lashier]

Although I like speed, if the picture is important, speed may not always be. So I'd be happy with the best result for the least effort.


How about this then, it should be a result easily reproducible from a set of step by step instructions/parameters. eg no handpainting a mask.

- DL

[Roger Lambert]

EDITED:

I forgot to say that I processed the original in two ways:

1) Left it "as is" and called it "Dark"

2) Processed with "levels" tool to expose the brick wall shadow detail. This exposure was renamed as "Bright".

I then used an automated luminosity mask procedure. (I have Photoshop CS1)

The blend itself took me about one minute. No hand painting. Then flattened, a tiny bit of levels, resize to 800 pixils on long size, re sharpened, posted at pbase. :)

My goal was to use a blended exposure to reveal shadow detail in the photograph in a natural way, but was not an exercise in changing or improving the nature of the original image using Photoshop.

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/image/64846626.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Andrew,

Link them to your website/server.

Asher

[Harvey Moore]

Here is my take on this:

Open CRW in Lightroom
Process with basic and tone curve adjustments to a flat appearance
Export as 16 bit tiff Profoto workspace
Open in PS CS2
Set black point on a dark crevice in rocks, lower left side
Slight curves adjustment, S shape for contrast
Run USM 20, 50, 0 Local contrast for subtle pop ++
Smart Sharpen .3, 150, 0
Resize, bicubic 800x600
Very slight smart sharpen
Set mode to 8 bit, convert to sRGB, save as jpg file
Upload to host
~12-15 minutes to host

http://static.flickr.com/60/210422411_a93acd9cd5_o.jpg

Edit: take 2 with lab channel adjustment

http://static.flickr.com/58/210902516_7491f3a708_o.jpg

[Andrew Rodney]

How's this?

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/RawTestLR.jpg

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Aut05-0010.jpg

[Stefan Hellstrom]

- Silkypix default except ,Auto EXP, contrast center, Memory color2 and AWB => 16 bit tiff Adobe RGB
- CS2 => LightMachine Polarizer 1 filter and LightMachine Shadow Highlight to lift shadows and adjust contrast&local contrast
- Adobe RGB to SRGB
- Scale to 640x480
http://www.fotosidan.se/obj/photo/6/611d56ca5d88a2ef41bafa3e1b1bcbae.jpg

Regards Stefan

[Andrew Rodney]

Best part of this is showing how damn subjective RAW rendering really is.

[David Bostock]

http://davidbostockphotography.com/webposts/Aut05-0010_ACR__1__2.jpg


Here's my take. The Workflow was:

Adobe Bridge, Process three versions of the Raw, one 2 stops over, one at exposure, and one 2 stops under.
Bring the three versions into Photomax Pro and blend them using HDR.
Pull the resultant image into Photoshop
Apply Levels
Selective Color--Black +3, Neutrals +12
Add a touch more contrast
Capture Sharpen
Noise Ninja (Auto Profile, then dialed back)
Resize
Output Sharpen for web

[Sean DeMerchant]

Hello Everyone,

As a result of my post in the HDR Tone Mapping thread, Asher has suggested I issue this challenge.

Using the RAW converter and PP software of your choice, do your best with this shot (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010.zip) ...

What I'm aiming for is to bring out the detail in the stone wall, bushes and foreground shadow, and to see what's on the other side of the gate, while preserving the sky and clouds.


http://www.envisagement.com/opf/Aut05-0010_RSE_02_web_SPD.jpg

Yet another variant. I used 5 basic steps (not in order).

1) I used two RAW conversions. One for the sky and one for the shadows. I then blended them using the masked blend Don mentioned in another thread using the blue channel as a mask on the brighter one to retain sky detail using darken blending mode. I also

2) Curves where applied via a Layer Mask to the lower layer to bring out shadow details and get a reasonable look.

3) The two raw conversion recieved a wide radius sharpen to enhance local contrast (radius=15, amout=28% or some such).

4) Levels was then applied to the entire thing via a Layer Mask with the advanced blending options set to not clip the highlights.

5) A final RAW conversion was done underexposed to get detail in the highlights of the clouds. The mask for this layer was the blue channel from the skie image. The advanced blending mode was tweaked to only apply this new darkening to the highlights and then the opacity was reduced to 28%. This was to retain just a hint of detail in the bright leading edge of the bank of clouds.

The image was then saved, resized, saved as a new file, flattened, sharpened, converted to sRGB, converted to 8-bit, and then saved as a JPEG.

[Sean DeMerchant]

Or with more saturation for those who like that thing:

http://www.envisagement.com/opf/Aut05-0010_RSE_02_web_SPD_sat.jpg

[Diane Fields]

Best part of this is showing how damn subjective RAW rendering really is.

How true. Its totally subjective and anyone who says what is 'correct'--well, has to be 'wrong' LOL. The closest one could be to 'correct' would be the OP and then--even he would have a 'bias' as to his remembrance of the scene--or even if he would want it to be as close as possible to reality. Then--we each will like some more than others--which is influenced by a lot of other things. Asher will have a problem handing out a prize on this one methinks.

[Stephen Eastwood]

http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/aut05-0010.jpg

two conversions in acr
dropped one on the other and masked off bright areas
applied a brighter contrast curve and masked off areas as needed
applied a darker contrast curve and masked off areas as needed
adjusted overall contrast with curves and added a hue saturation adjustment to add +3 saturation and a +10 in the blues

about 5 minutes

I don't do much landscape I mainly only do people so I am sure there are much faster and better ways to do all this.

edited to add a BW version

for this I added a channel mixer adjustment layer that simulates pan f
under that I had a curve layer to darken everything and masked off as needed with a large soft brush at 30% opacity

http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/aut05-0010bw.jpg


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
718-591-1218

[Tom Yi]

I think Stephen's edition is the best so far.
Good job.

[Stephen Eastwood]

Landscape beginners luck I swear!!

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
718-591-1218

[Asher Kelman]

Impressive array of truths we see! There's a lot of delicacy in the clouds there which some of the results show very well.

Asher

[Don Lashier]

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/Aut05-0010-web-1.jpg

Here's mine, using the dual conversion layer masking technique I referenced earlier

- Dual C1 conversions, -0.75ec 0cc, +1.25ec +12cc
- Layered in PS, dark on top, light copied to mask on dark
- gaussian blur mask 58, contrast mask 33
- contrast curve on light (bottom) layer
- top (dark) sat + 11
- slight overall contrast curve

flatten, resize, moderate USM, add black border, save as jpeg 7

Time, about 10 minutes.

edit: remove black border to equalize with others

- DL

[Alain Briot]

I like David's color version and Stephen's B&W. For some reason Andrew's versions appear a little too green.

[Dierk Haasis]

http://Foto.Write4U.de/Forum/Aut05-0010.JPG

1. RAWShooterpremium:
- set WB 7200, -1
- Exposure Compensation -0.5, Fill Light 45, Shadow Contrast 25, Highlight Contrast-21
- Curves 16, 0.83, 246
- converted to TIFF

2. Opened TIFF in Capture NX:
- set four U-Points, 3 on the left edge to darken the sky, tint the cloud reddish, open up the shadows in the bush and wall; fourth set on the cloud in the middle to darken and tint it slightly

Effect gone for: early summer evening with the sun not quite setting but giving a warm light. Matches the shadows.

Time taken: 5 minutes.

[Don Lashier]

http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/Aut05-0010-web-sat.jpg

And a saturated version for those that like the Velvia look.

- DL

[Petter Stahre]

Fun thread!

Here's my contribution:
http://www.matbilder.se/test/aut-05-0010-ps1.jpg

...and:
http://www.matbilder.se/test/aut-05-0010-ps2.jpg

Workflow:
Made two exposures in RAW Developer, at slightly warmer color temp and a little saturation gain.
Imported as layers in Photoshop.
Added a layermask to the darker exposure ("sky layer") and kept only the sky.
Added extra saturation to the sky layer using the B+W filter Enhance Colors.
Added contrast to the lighter exposure (using curves).
Saw that the cloud still missed details and tried ACR which gave me an third image with better clouds.
Imported the ACR as a new layer, added layermask and painted in the cloud details. I then corrected the colors of the ACR-layer to match the sky layer.

For finetuning I flattened the image, and took away a little saturation globally and then again to desaturate greens only.
I gave the whole image a little more contrast and black shadows (using curves).

Resized the image and used Smart Sharpen (500+0,3+Gaussian / 100+40+1 / 100+40+1).

I then made a BW-version using The ImagingFactorys Convert to BW Pro in which I also gave it a little warm tone.

Voilà. Approx 15 minutes for the color image and 1 minute for the BW. My aim was to keep the image natural looking while enhancing contrast. I'm not fond of detailed retouching of images so I stopped there.

Very nice photo by the way!
And nice contributions in this thread! Lot's of fun to look at.

:) Petter

EDIT: Language.

[Don Lashier]

How true. Its totally subjective and anyone who says what is 'correct'--well, has to be 'wrong' LOL.
I think the real lesson here is that "plug-ins" are no magic bullet. The real determiner is the skill and vision of the operator.

- DL

[Dierk Haasis]

The real determiner is the skill and vision of the operator.

Strike 'skill', I have always said and written it is about the vision. Reluctantly I put in the specifics of my fiddling but most important to me is the part about what my goal was. From what I see that's exactly what everybody else went for: interpreting a bunch of data to convey a specific information, a scene instead of a picture.

This is particularly obvious with those making available several versions. And the one who first came up with the idea to render the photo as black and white.

[Bev Sampson]

What an interesting and informative thread!

[Roger Lambert]

I think the real lesson here is that "plug-ins" are no magic bullet. The real determiner is the skill and vision of the operator.

- DL

I respectfully disagree.

I think the real lesson here is that you can't put a bunch of digital photographers in one room with a simple PP project, before everyone's creative energy is no longer contained, and bursts out of its protective container like a radiactive plutonium plasma. :)

There "oughtta be a law" as well for the collective brain-warping phenomena that occurs when you get a certain quanta of photoshopping-crazed artists out-reaching each other in a contest-driven frenzy. :D

I think it should be called " Disney's Law. "

In Disney's Law, Warpage, W, =

C x 1/t
n squared


where C = the coolness of the effect, t = the time needed to produce the effect, and n = the number of Post Processing Digital Photographers producing Brain Warpage .

It doesn't take too many digital photographers to really pump up the warpage, according to Disney's Law. :D

[Diane Fields]

Strike 'skill', I have always said and written it is about the vision. Reluctantly I put in the specifics of my fiddling but most important to me is the part about what my goal was. From what I see that's exactly what everybody else went for: interpreting a bunch of data to convey a specific information, a scene instead of a picture.

This is particularly obvious with those making available several versions. And the one who first came up with the idea to render the photo as black and white.

I tend to agree with vision as opposed to 'skill'. Also---the choice of an RC and how it was used had an enormous bearing on the final image.

I used 3 different RCs to process--ended up preferring one over another (all with +EC, -EC and no EC), pulled into HDR as David, then used TM, added curves, color balance adj. layer, then adj. layer for selective color (never happy with the greens from any RC--but then this camera had no camera profiles in C1 or RSP) and masked out everything but grass from that layer. Resized, PKS masked and adjusted to suit.
http://www.pbase.com/image/64879431.jpg I saw it as a very early Fallish day due to the dried grass stems, bound to be warmer light due to the shadows/time of day--and therefore felt it needed to be less 'light'--I'm sure we all had some approach like this--whether conscious or not.


I could have ended up with totally different 'look' by blending those files in PC, masking, layering, and certainly by choosing C1 or ACR conversions over the RSP. I meant to add the following:
2 used LR, 1 used Silkypix, 2 used ACR, 1 used C1 (I tried it but was less happy with it than usual--esp. sky), 2 used RPS, 1 used Raw Developer. There were a variety of approaches--2 of us using the standalone Photomatix for the original HDR/tonemapping after RAW processing--and we all did additional PS processing----and there's not any image here that is really close to another in the end.

Diane

[Dierk Haasis]

I think the real lesson here is that you can't put a bunch of digital photographers in one room with a simple PP project, before everyone's creative energy is no longer contained, and bursts out of its protective container like a radiactive plutonium plasma.

It proves that there is no "correct" colour, and a lot of roads leading to Rome.

[Andrew Rodney]

Multiple converters and layering of each in Photoshop? Wow, I thought this was supposed to be a 5 minute exercise.

Can we stick with a single rendering from a single processor for now?

I didn't mention (sorry) that of my two attempts, one was using Lightroom, the other RAW Developer. And yes, they look quite different.

A difficult task is taking the same RAW file and using say 3 converters and attempting to match as closely as possible the rendering. That takes a lot more than 5 minutes each! I've got an "Iron Chief" RAW converter session in the works for PhotoPlus Expo in NY later this year where two very well know photographers will have four different companies attempt to produce a rendering they like, all the way to output. Should be a fun one.

[Diane Fields]

Multiple converters and layering of each in Photoshop? Wow, I thought this was supposed to be a 5 minute exercise.

Can we stick with a single rendering from a single processor for now?

I didn't mention (sorry) that of my two attempts, one was using Lightroom, the other RAW Developer. And yes, they look quite different.

A difficult task is taking the same RAW file and using say 3 converters and attempting to match as closely as possible the rendering. That takes a lot more than 5 minutes each! I've got an "Iron Chief" RAW converter session in the works for PhotoPlus Expo in NY later this year where two very well know photographers will have four different companies attempt to produce a rendering they like, all the way to output. Should be a fun one.

I did it because I was curious about the differences in RCs. I chose the RSP conversion--and in fact, could have used one conversion and the Photomatix TM plugin as opposed to combining the 3 conversions in the standalone and then TM. Tried that--not much difference, but they all needed the color balance, saturation and curves layer IMO.

I'm not sure I could arrive at something i would like using only the RC conversion from any of the converters I have on my HD--all PC ones except Silkypix. I expect others, like Andrew, can do this--I always feel the need to add at least a curve layer and adjust--even though I do a curves in RSP or C1. I probably could have been happy with the color version from C1 or RSP if I had had a camera profile tamping down those greens though LOL.

Diane

[Diane Fields]

A difficult task is taking the same RAW file and using say 3 converters and attempting to match as closely as possible the rendering. That takes a lot more than 5 minutes each! I've got an "Iron Chief" RAW converter session in the works for PhotoPlus Expo in NY later this year where two very well know photographers will have four different companies attempt to produce a rendering they like, all the way to output. Should be a fun one.

I'd love to see that LOL. Just piddling with using RSP, C1 and ACR for this one was interesting (I have Bibble thanks to Eric, but just find the workflow not suitable for me--and don't care for the fact I can't 'calibrate' my camera ala ACR or use a camera profile). I often try various ones (and have been demoing LR--which I actually like generally) for a particular image. However, its WAY more than 5 minutes to arrive at similar conversion--and I'm assuming they won't be able to adjust except within the RC. I'd love to be a mouse on the wall LOL.

Diane

[StuartRae]

Well, I never expected such a response; it's been an enjoyable and informative experience. Thanks to everyone for sparing the time to take part.

There are so many different renditions that it's difficult to say which I like best. At the moment it comes down to a choice of two, neither of which are exactly how (I think) I remember the scene. I won't say which they are as I don't want to influence the judge.

Whoever wins, I think Dierk should get a special prize for daring to be different. Ignoring the fact that the shot was taken at 10am on Octiber 15th, he went for the late summer evening look. And why not? It's as vaid an interpretation as any.

Don, I see you've removed the black border. Why did you add it originally? Do you think that the background colour affects our perception of a photo? My father was a farmer, and I remember that back in the 50s, when he took a sample of grain to the buyer it always had to be in a black cloth bag.

Regards,

Stuart

[Asher Kelman]

Wonderful! Let's close this at noon Los Angeles time!

Who has a beautiful/interesting, but challenged, face in the RAW for the next challenge? Send to w84u hosted at mac.com.

Asher

[Don Lashier]

Multiple converters and layering of each in Photoshop? Wow, I thought this was supposed to be a 5 minute exercise.

Can we stick with a single rendering from a single processor for now?

Hi Andrew,

You must have missed the other thread which inspired this - HDR plug-ins and techniques. With new tools and techniques what used to be tedious can now be done in a few minutes.

I hate the idea of a "winner", just different interpretations, but if I had to pick my favorites would be Diane's and David's.

- DL

[Eric Hyman]

Ok, enough Lurking I'll bite.


Less the one minute in Bibble Pro/ PS Cs2 (For ouptut sharpening)

http://mirror.worldwind.net/pub/bibble/samples/Aut05-0010-bibble1.jpg

1. Click WB off clouds to neutralize them, takes a bib of red out of the image an leaves a tiny yello/green look which works well with the foliage.
2. Autolevels off (prevent clipping)
3. Highlight recovery = 100, monocrhomatic option selected (Pull detail out of clouds)
4. Fill light 0.2 (Brinb out some shadow detail, yet still leave some contrast)...could do more, but flatter)
5. Saturation = 7, vibrance = 100 (A bit more pop overall, and non locally add more in less vibrant areas)
6. Perfectl Clear on (automatic Localized contrast enhanacemnet...helps everyewhere, and brings in distant detail)
7. Lens Distortion corection enabled (Remove non obvious lens distortion at edges)
8. Output size 800 x 600
9. sharpen = 400 (Over sharpen a bit due to down sampling).
10. Transfer to photosharp.
11. Smart sharpen, default vaules (Output sharpening, restore some sharpenss lost in down sampling)

Comments:

A bit differetn color balance then the other entries which i find more appealing do to the subject matter. Could easil y be chagned with a different WB source. Tried to not go ver board with pulling shadows to preserve some contrast, could easily get more. Seem to have gotten more detail in the distant hills then other examples show (Can actually see small pines)

As an aside, you might like to play with Perfectly Clear, Vibrance, HR and fillight in the latest bibbles, as they are all locally adaptive adjustments that do a lot things you would nomrally need to do in PS with layers masks etc, but all automatically.

Eric
www.bibblelabs.com

[Brian Lowe]

OK, I wanna play to here is my attempt, I used Adobe Lightroom.

Total time processing 20min.

Step one, I opened Adobe Lightroom and imported photo, 5min.

Step two, applying a saved preset setting, one click in LR, 5min.

Step three, Played with HSL sliders to tweak photo, moved four sliders, 4min.

Step four, exported photo into PS from LR, 4min.

Step five, applied Flexsharp for sharpening of photo 10sec.

Step Six, Save, upload photo to my site and type this post, 1min 90 seconds.

Enjoy,

Brian
http://brianlowe.smugmug.com/photos/87157296-L.jpg
(http://brianlowe.smugmug.com/photos/87157296-L.jpg)

[Asher Kelman]

Wow! Still incoming! This like Stephen Easwood's version gives us a late-summer day with different yellow green hues in the trees.

The clouds could have, perhaps more detail.

I like it.

[Don Lashier]

It proves that there is no "correct" colour, and a lot of roads leading to Rome.
This challenge reminds me of Uwe's "challenges" (http://www.outbackphoto.com/contest/index.html) where entrants come up with sometimes radically different interpretations.

This might be a fun thing to do once a month or so - no winners, just eye-opening and horizon broadening. I could easily put this challenge's entries into a gallery (with contributor's comments) if no one objects? (could be openphotographyforums URL with a simple A record).

- DL

[Don Lashier]

Don, I see you've removed the black border. Why did you add it originally? Do you think that the background colour affects our perception of a photo? My father was a farmer, and I remember that back in the 50s, when he took a sample of grain to the buyer it always had to be in a black cloth bag.

I did it because the typical light background affects perception of an image, in particular contrast. But since no one else was doing this and to some degree the eye adapts, I decided to remove it. If there's no objection to putting these in a gallery, I'll put them all in a gallery with a dark background and neutral mat that displays to best effect (as opposed to a white page background).

- DL

[Alain Briot]

http://beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/Aut05-0010.jpg

[StuartRae]

One final take.
It is my photo after all, so I'm entitled to make a real mess of it :-)

Why not be different? I thought, so here's the moonlight version.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010-02-moon-2.jpg

It's the wall and clouds that matter, so:

Into PSE, a couple of spots in Light Machine, darken and desaturate background, resize, sharpen with Focal Blade.

Could have done with a bit more adjustment to the spot settings, but I stuck to the time limit.

Stuart

edited to add last comment

[Jim Govett]

I haven't seen an Aperture version yet, so I figure I'd better fix that. Didn't spend more than a couple minutes on it as I'm rushing to get out of here. Went for a more realistic effect with truer colours.

http://idisk.mac.com/j_govett/Public/Aut05-0010-Aperture_2.jpg

Jim

[Asher Kelman]

Nice to have an Aperture version! To be fair, what about the clouds when you get another moment?

Otherwise I like it, especially htat you brought out the different yellow greens in the trees and grasses.

Asher

[Roger Lambert]

I'm no PP guru, but I am pretty inpressed with the results that many folks are getting with the Photoshop alternative programs that do not require blending exposures. :)

[Asher Kelman]

Alain,

Of course yours is wonderful! Now what gremlins did you have doing this for you? The steps je vous en pris!

Asher

[StuartRae]

If I may, I'd like to submit a proxy conversion.

It was made by a friend of mine on the RS forums who's not a member here.

It demonstrates a slightly different approach to the problem, and was achieved with free software (Picasa)

It was exposed for the foreground in RSP and then had auto contrast, a bit of sharpening and a blue graduated filter applied in Picasa.
To my eyes, and memory, it's pretty close to the original in terms of light and colour.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010-02-PC.jpg

[Diane Fields]

Andrew's misreading of the 'rules' (from the other thread) pushed me to try and come up with a near final image from just the RAW converter. Thus far I've worked with RSP and LIghtroom--and, surprisingly, I preferred the LR final image. I haven't tried C1 (my usual 'alternative' RC) or Bibble--or DPP, but probably won't even try either of these since I don't use them on a regular basis so would not get an optimal result. I won't post my 2 RC only images---but it wouldn't take much--a bit of curves maybe--to get a nice image from LR--though it took me a heck of a long time to come to grips with the curve function there--and which was needed, plus the color calibration--to arrive at something I liked. Based on that--maybe I'll even go back and work with ACR again since my RC of choice is a deadend.

What a terrific group of inages---I loved the diversity since it shows how differently our minds and eyes--and creative vision---differ.

Diane

[Alain Briot]

Alain,

Of course yours is wonderful! Now what gremlins did you have doing this for you? The steps je vous en pris!

Asher

I'm glad you ask :-) I did it late last night (morning?) It was all done in Lightroom on a Mac. Essentially with the split toning and the Greyscale mixer. I also straightened the horizon and cropped the house on the right side as well as the top of the sky. Finally, I worked towards keeping details in the clouds, giving a solid density to the sky, maintaining shadows where I feel they should be while maintaining what I feel is a dreamy quality to this scene.

The real challenge, as always, is knowing how this scene felt while one was there, since obviously I wasn't there. It is easier with my students because I can ask questions. Here, I just went with my experience. I do believe that the wall should end at the end of the wall, and not at half of a house. The tilted horizon truly bothered me. I can see why, because it was real hard to figure out were was a level line (there isn't one). Again, I went with the feel of the image. I wanted the clouds to be the lightest part of the scene, and yet not over-dominate the other tones. Things were easier with the shadows since there isn't a dominating deep shadow, except at extreme mid-left, but since this is where we pretty much start reading the image, it isn't dominating, plus it has little lighter branches to break it up. I kept the end of the wall darker to provide a tonal echo to the shadow on the mid-left (the one I just mentioned). The dominating compositional lines are definitly the mountains and the wall meeting, sort of, at far mid-right, lines reinforced by cropping the sky to just above the hill on the right, thereby increasing the importance of the hill, and playing up the clouds following the shape of the hill in a sort of visual echo. The sepia split tone brings unity to a scene otherwise broken up by clashing colors that become easily oversaturated if one goes in the direction of more saturation.

[Alain Briot]

Here is a larger version so the fine details can be seen. There is some additional work to be done in Photoshop, of course, but I am following the rules in that everything up to this point was done in Lightroom:


http://beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/Aut05-00101.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Alain,

Your explanation of your compositonal directions is so helpful. I like the idea of basing the eye movement on the darkest tone, and the horizontal edge before the mountains (not the horizon surely). I find your descriptions so helpful.

Great!

Asher

[Alain Briot]

Alain,

Your explanation of your compositonal directions is so helpful. I like the idea of basing the eye movement on the darkest tone, and the horizontal edge before the mountains (not the horizon surely). I find your descriptions so helpful.

Great!

Asher

Thank you. This is something I do in all my workshops and with most of my consulting students. It works better as a discussion than as a written statement, because interaction does make the process a lot richer --questions / answers-- but it was interesting trying to type it for once. I regularly spend a full hour on one or two photographs. I try to do several in an hour, but it is challenging. There is just so much to say. I could have gone on and type 10 pages on everything that can be said about the image above.

[Asher Kelman]

We do have at least 10 pages for you Alain, but for the moment, thanks for adding some pointers to compositional nuances that can so help a picture.

All without mentioning schools or movements of art!

Asher

[Alain Briot]

All without mentioning schools or movements of art!
Asher


Yes, this is practice, not theory!

[Jim Govett]

I can't say I'd ever go much beyond this to produce a life-like image. Here I've reduced the blue's levels to darken the sky and bring out the clouds a bit. I'm using Aperture, and am trying to avoid going outside of the application to get an end-image. For further changes like darkening the sky on the far left, I would go on to PS CS and return to Aperture for management purposes.

I have to agree with Alain Briot. The horizon feels off. I didn't change it initially due to time limitations, but I would rotate the image about 10°.

Jim

Nice to have an Aperture version! To be fair, what about the clouds when you get another moment?

Otherwise I like it, especially htat you brought out the different yellow greens in the trees and grasses.

Asher

http://idisk.mac.com/j_govett/Public/Aut05-0010 Aperture.jpg

[Tudor Caradoc-Davies]

Lightzone:

I have been trying the product and thought it may be useful in developing the emphasis of the clouds, stone wall, and spot of light at the photographer's feet. Presumably a late summer image.
Opened with LZ's raw converter, gave a very flat image.
Used two zonemappers, one for clouds and dark wall tones, the second to lighten trees and fields.
Then contrast, saturation and sharpen.
Still learning, it took but a few minutes.
No localised masking used, which is a strong point of LZ.

Could someone help me with posting the image ? Thanks.

Regards, Tudor.

[Asher Kelman]

Great! BTW, who says it has to be pure? If one wants to use PS too that's fine. Anyway the place is starting to look like it is somewhere I know!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

To post an image, read about clicking on the little mountain icon. Skip the first part of the thread.

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=648

[Sean DeMerchant]

Could someone help me with posting the image ?

Try this thread (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=648).

enjoy,

Sean

[Tudor Caradoc-Davies]

Thanks for the tips.
On inserting the URL of the image:

http://www.brightwater-magic.com/assets/images/tudor.jpg




Regards, tudor.

[Dierk Haasis]

It has to look like this (without the spaces around the URL):

http://www.brightwater-magic.com/parking/tudor_Aut05_lzn04.jpg

Also, the URL seems to be wrong, I get a 404 on opening it.

[Tudor Caradoc-Davies]

Thanks, used the "million monkeys" approach !

Tudor.

[StuartRae]

As the author of this humble holiday snap, I was fascinated to read Alain's assessment. Cropping gets rid of the distracting rucksack mid right, as well as the ruined building (part of the old mine office and loading platform for the narrow guage railway that took iron ore down to the coast).
It did need straightening as well - I'm convinced I have one leg longer than the other :-)

What about the gateway? There's a path leading down to it, so it must go somewhere. Don't you want to lean on the gate to see what's on the other side? I know of course, but aren't the rest of you the least bit curious? And where does the path come from? The answer might be stranger than you imagine.

Stuart

[Jerry P'Simer]

Hello Everyone,

As a result of my post in the HDR Tone Mapping thread, Asher has suggested I issue this challenge.

Using the RAW converter and PP software of your choice, do your best with this shot (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/Aut05-0010.zip)

If I'd known it would escalate to this extent, I'd have chosen a better photo! In reality, it's a bit like making a silk purse........ But what's done is done.

What I'm aiming for is to bring out the detail in the stone wall, bushes and foreground shadow, and to see what's on the other side of the gate, while preserving the sky and clouds.

I suggest in order to save bandwidth for those with slower connections that files are limited to 800x600 medium quality jpegs.

No prize was mentioned, but a nice bottle of vin rouge would go down well ;-)

Regards,

Stuart

HI all, I ran across this thread through a link provided by Andrew Rodney on the Colortheory List and was intrigued by the results so I thought I would give it a shot based on the quoted request.

This is basicly what I did:

1) Straight convert from Adobe Raw converter (default settings) using the ProPhotoRGB profile.
2) Sized to the above mentioned size requirements.
3) Assignend a new profile ProphotoRGB with a 1.4 gamma.
4) Converted to LAB
5) Built an inverted mask using Calculations based on the L and the b channels
6) Using curves through the mask I beefed up the shadow end while holding the midtone values from the conversion from the 1.4 gamma pofile.
7) Removed the mask and did a follow up curve to set the graybalance and color contrast to what I thought would look the most natural while preserving the most detail.
8) Sharpend the file through same mask mentioned above.
9) Additional sharpening w/o mask to finalize the result.
10) Converted to sRGB and saved for Web

If his were my image I would probably crop and rotate the image but it is not so I'll just leave it as is. ;)

Total time 7 minutes.
Click the link below to see the final.

Regards,
Jerry

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/jerry717/th_Aut05-0010.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/jerry717/Aut05-0010.jpg)

[Asher Kelman]

Jerry,

Welcome again!

I like your version. It brings out some of the subtle differences in the hues of the leaves. This is like Stephen Eastwood's scene in march, after two weeks of rain!

Asher

Slick to get the smaller image as a link! If the image itself is on the page, saves one click!

[Alain Briot]

What about the gateway? There's a path leading down to it, so it must go somewhere. Don't you want to lean on the gate to see what's on the other side? I know of course, but aren't the rest of you the least bit curious? And where does the path come from? The answer might be stranger than you imagine.
Stuart

I don't think there is enough of the path behind the gate showing in order to make me curious about where it leads!

[Jerry P'Simer]

Jerry,Slick to get the smaller image as a link! If the image itself is on the page, saves one click!
Thanks Asher,

You can still save by Click and save Link to hard drive.

Just saving bandwidth. ;)

Jerry

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Jerry!

Asher

[Don Lashier]

Lightzone:
Could someone help me with posting the image ? Thanks.

If you need someone to host it, email it to dl at newportnet dot com.

- DL

[Tudor Caradoc-Davies]

Hi Don,

Thanks, I uploaded it to my website and linked to that, the image is on page 7 here.
The main issue was getting the correct URL to the image.
Regards,
Tudor.

[Jerry P'Simer]

What about the gateway? There's a path leading down to it, so it must go somewhere. Don't you want to lean on the gate to see what's on the other side? I know of course, but aren't the rest of you the least bit curious? And where does the path come from? The answer might be stranger than you imagine.

Stuart

There are some visual clues in the image like the chicken wire unrolled across the top of the stone wall to the right of the gate. The path leading out just ends for no apparent reason. There appears to be a cloths line on the inside of the gated area with something hanging from it. Possibly some underthingies flapping in the breeze? ;-)

Would you care to enlighten us?...Im listening.

Jerry

[Don Lashier]

Originally I had considered this an exercise in tonality and ignored WB. Here's my "evening" interpretation. I just altered the WB and EC in the raw conversions somewhat and replaced the images in my previous attempts - same mask, just contrasted a bit more. One thing I discovered in this exercise is the power of the contrast adjustment on the layer mask. Adding adjustment layers was a hugh step forward for PS, adding the ability of have adjustment layers for masks would be another hugh step.

I should add that normally I don't alter images to this degree - if I want an "evening" image, I shoot it in the evening, but this thread has certainly gotten me thinking a little more creatively regarding image adjustment.
http://www.lashier.com/images/temp/Aut05-0010-evening.jpg

- DL

[Asher Kelman]

Don,

It is said that the camera doesn't lie! Monet could have done all his paintings in one afternoon if he had photoshop! You really pushed the evening golden light!

Asher

[Don Lashier]

Don,
You really pushed the evening golden light!

Asher

Yeah, to 8600k aamof, 7800 probably would have been more realistic, but in a thread such as this you've got to make a statement or the differences get lost ;)

- DL

[Dierk Haasis]

Don, your rendering has the look of a classical (Dutch school) painting. And that's a compliment.

[Juergen Koslowski]

Hi,

I only found this interesting thread today. Here's the link to my version:

http://www.iti.cs.tu-bs.de/~koslowj/PHOTOS/Aut05-0010b.jpg

Raw conversion: silkypix: exposure -1/3; WB 6000, 3; sharpness a little strong; tone a little strong; color
vivid; custom tone curve (011,022), (128,128)

Finishing touches: PS CS2: shadow/highlight with shadow 10, highlight 6; contrast +2; curve RGB (64,64),
(124,132), (192,192); unsharp mask 20, 50, 0; resize; smart sharpen 33, 2.3, remove lens blur

Quite faszinating to see the wide scope for possible solutions!

-- Juergen

[Fred Spencer]

If I may, I'd like to submit a proxy conversion.

It was made by a friend of mine on the RS forums who's not a member here.

It demonstrates a slightly different approach to the problem, and was achieved with free software (Picasa)

It was exposed for the foreground in RSP and then had auto contrast, a bit of sharpening and a blue graduated filter applied in Picasa.
To my eyes, and memory, it's pretty close to the original in terms of light and colour.


Hello all,

I have now signed up here and worked out how to put something on a site so that I can link to things myself. So, here are my versions (daylight and moonlight). Conversions were done in RSP and finished off in Picasa. http://www.fredspencer.homecall.co.uk/Aut05-0010-wall/

Fred

[Asher Kelman]

Welcome Fred,

Glad you joined and jumped in and even a night version.

Asher

BTW Your 3rd from last penguin picture, would be interesting on a snow b.g.

Also could you add a copyright notice on your versions to Stuart Rae

[StuartRae]

Would you care to enlighten us?...Im listening.

Jerry,

Sorry about the 'noise'.

Just trying to add a bit of local info about the shot.

Through the gate is nothing startling, just the small hamlet of Boot (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/through_the_gate.jpg)

It has a corn mill, a pub, a shop, and most importantly a church.
The path does continue beyond the paved area - it curves round behind us to the right and climbs over the desolate expanse of Burnmoor before descending into the next valley, Wasdale.
Prior to 1901 Wasdale had no consecrated ground, and so no burials were possible. The gate and the track leading down to Boot marks the end of the Corpse Road, over which the dead of Wasdale were carried on horseback for burial in St. Catherine's Church (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sw.rae/examples/St_Catherine's_Church.jpg).

[Jerry P'Simer]

Thank You Stuart,

Your discription and added photos add depth and much greater interest to the original shot.

Jerry

[Asher Kelman]

... and a sense of a community with real lives and history.

Who but an educated Englishman would write, "Prior to 1901 Wasdale had no consecrated ground"?

This is the beginning of a great novel.

Asher

[StuartRae]

Also could you add a copyright notice on your versions to Stuart Rae
Asher,

That isn't really necessary. Fred and I have been swapping photos for so long now that we're not sure what belongs to who :-) I've helped him with technical problems, and he's helped me look at my photos in a new light.

This is the beginning of a great novel.
One day when I retire (14 working days and counting) I may write it.

[Asher Kelman]

No odd inferences intended :)

My comment on © refers to reposting, so we don't get creeping use rights problems from others who find the images!.

Any discussion goes here:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=597

We've never had any problems and with this crowd, we're all comfortable and it's great!

Asher

[StuartRae]

No odd inferences intended :)
others who find the images!.
Asher

Understood, but I can't imagine who'd want to claim this one as their own!

Regarding the history of the gate, it's what prompted me to make my moonlight submission (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5374&postcount=46)
Here we are, sitting in the shadow of the mountains watching the pale moonlight shining on the gateway and the distant fields. What's that noise behind us? Is it the sound of a hoof striking a cobblestone....................................... .....

[Diane Fields]

Yeah, to 8600k aamof, 7800 probably would have been more realistic, but in a thread such as this you've got to make a statement or the differences get lost ;)

- DL

LOL--I understand. I lIke this one--and I love the different 'takes' on the same image.

[DDAVIES]

Hi everyone.

Couldn't resist a challenge so...I hope I've followed the rules :-)
The result is a little over-saturated but that was the idea. Ideally I would have liked some darker areas to increase the "chiaroscuro" but no painting and time ran out...

1) max time taken 10 minutes
2) Three RAW conversions for highlight/midtone/lowlight areas
3) Sky select/feather/mask/gradient tool/hue and sat/levels
4) select inverse and do pretty much the same on all the layers. No special painting.
5) Flatten and a touch of smart sharpen.


http://www.lightworksmedia.co.uk/Commercial_Photography/newstock/Aut05-0010.jpg

[Bob Walker]

I used PWP to develop and edit this image. The RAW development used default settings, and the postprocessing (using 48 bit color) applied the 3-tone enhancement workflow popularized by den
http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/3tone/3tone.htm

This procedure processes the image in 3 (masking) steps -- first for highlights in HSL space (which deepens the sky and protects the clouds), second for shadows in HSV space (which brings up the exposure in the shadows), and finally for midtones in RGB space (which increases contrast and saturation)/ The final image was downsized and sharpened....

Total time less than 10 minutes, as requested.

http://www.pbase.com/rwalkernm/image/65284106.jpg


-Bob

(copyright text added to image ... RBW)

[Asher Kelman]

Jim,

I liked your contribution and tried to get it to show up here. I'm puzzled!

Reminder: make sure you have © original photographer!

Asher

[Dierk Haasis]

If image does not show, it is also at [url]http://www.pbase.com/image/65284106[\url]

The correct syntax for the BBcode URL is description (actual link). To embed an image you need the code IMG; you have to use the actual image file as an URI (the last three letters have to be the file extension of a browser-compatible file, like JPG, GIF, SWF).

In your case:
NCPlus (http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/3tone/3tone.htm)

or:

PBase (http://www.pbase.com/image/65284106)

[Ferenc Harmat]

...Well, just found this wonderful thread, and wanted to provide some input.

My interpretation of the scene calls for an image as crisp and natural looking as possible, with a touch of "film-like" contrast. Not subdued, but not overdone / "steroidized", either.

It also calls for recovering the dramatically ill skies, in which the blue channel has been skewed to the far high-key end, as product of the strong "backlight" created in the left corner, by the sun.

So our mission here is to recover as much as we can from the sky, making it BRIGHT BLUE (not pale, not dark), while still retaining the tonal crispness/brightness that the scene lends itself for,with MAXIMUM possible dynamic range in the 48 to 255 value-range.

As a side note, the sky on its original capture offers a complex, concentrically-aligned gradient of midtones-to-highlights, which needs to be carefully handled and preserved during post-processing. Also, the B&W version tries to mimic, to some extent, the balance of dynamic range/contrast/sharpness and overall "character" found in Ansel Adam's book "The Making of 40 Photographs", which is a must-have, for sure.

Having said that, here is the first version (COLOR):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/65323230/original

The above was produced with the following workflow:

a. FLEXRanger (for DR expansion and blue-channel optimization).
b. FLEXTone (for tonality and density boosting, particularly of mid-tones)
c. Curves in PhotoShop (for final "interpretation" of contrast. I chose to be particular aggressive on the 0-48
range).
d. FLEXSharp (for bringing as much detail as possible)


Here goes the second version (B&W):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/65323231/original

Exact same workflow as above, with the exception of B&W output mode in FLEXTone, and a slightly different curve.

Thanks for sharing the original files!