Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Calico under the sun  (Read 11936 times)
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2006, 06:34:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Everyone please feel free to work on the RAW file and post your results. I would love to see and know how you accomplished your results.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Processing:

Original RAW data multiplied by 8 to get a bright 16-bit TIFF, and a better space to interpolate color planes

Data interpolated into RGB color planes (no white balance applied).

Blackpoint of 1024 (8*128) clipped to 0.

Saved out as 16-bit TIFF.

Loaded into PS, Channel mixer in mono mode 200% red, 100% green, -50% blue (approximately, by memory).

"Curve" pulled up into upper left corner.

800*533 resample.

USM of 0.5px, 150%.


« Last Edit: August 19, 2006, 07:50:23 PM by John Sheehy » Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2006, 06:53:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I converted my image to greyscale in photoshop before saving it, and somehow, even though I have all the normal defaults set for color in PS for sRGB and grey, the conversion left the image at its original gamma onscreen, but saved out in such a way that it displayed dark in the browser.  I replaced it with the RGB version, but the old one is still in the cache when I refresh my reply.  So, eventually, the original, brighter image should show up.

[Edit:] It's fixed now.  I relinked.

I've noticed many other problems with PS' greyscale.  I reported a bug with it a while back to Chris Cox (the info tool was extremely posterized in its pixel value readout).
« Last Edit: August 19, 2006, 07:42:02 PM by John Sheehy » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2006, 09:31:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, do it like Tim says, right click, Save as, change extension to CR2 and save.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can't see it. Right clicking doesn't give me the option of saving, whether I right click the page of hieroglyphics or right click the URL. The only option of saving is 'file/save as' which gets me back to where I started.

If I change the html extension to CR2 (after 'saving as' under file options), it gives me an appearance of the right file type. It looks like a RAW image, but Photoshop (or Bridge) refuses to open it. Tells me it's not the right file type.

The hieroglyphics, btw, consist of around one page of gibberish followed by several pages of 'crossed out' gibberish.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2006, 09:46:40 PM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2006, 10:16:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Since I can't show off my phoshop skills with this image (or more to the point, lack of, which is just as well   ), perhaps I can comment on the B&W versions already offered.

To my mind, John Sheehy's is the most natural and believable rendition. The blue sky is not too dark. The clouds retain full detail but also a natural contrast. The contrast in the lower part of the image is not exaggerated and is in balance with the sky and the (imagined) general lighting conditions.

Richowens version is similar to John's but lacks detail and contrast in the clouds. On the other hand, the lower part of Richowens version has a more dramatic and interesting contrast, so his version would come a close second, perhaps very close.

All the others have got the blue of the sky too dark, giving me the impression I'm standing on the moon watching a miraculous appearance of clouds against an inky black sky.

Tim Gray's version is the most dramatic in this respect, but requires a certain 'suspension of disbelief'   .
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 835



« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2006, 11:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, getting detail in clouds is one of my weaknesses. I either blow them out in places or they lack sparkle.

On downloading the raw file, I overlooked something this morning.
I clicked on Tim's link and got the page of hieroglyphics. I closed that page, then rightclicked the link,"save target as" and changed the file extension to CR2.
I thought the download went quick for an 8meg file, but it worked.

I tried again a while ago and unless I loaded the gibberish first, which took a while, the file was unusable in Photoshop. I know this is a very convoluted way of getting the file, but it worked.  

This is all in IE6.

Sorry for leading you astray this morning and I am looking forward to seeing your Photoshop skills.

Rich
Logged

John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2006, 02:36:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought the download went quick for an 8meg file, but it worked.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was already downloaded, and was in the OS' file cache.
Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2006, 03:05:52 AM »
ReplyReply




RAW:
WB 4350 so you get the most separation between colors, blue sky, red rocks, yellow bedding etc...

-0.25 exposure comp for clouds.

decent contrast and brightness settings

+30 saturation to again get good color separation for B&W conversion.

Lens:
RC -35
BY +3
This will even help a low res rendition. If you plan on doing more photography, indulge yourself with a better lens.

Curve:
Used a slight reduction in overall tone except for darkest tones. This helps to separate the sky.

B&W CONVERSION.
Use your preferred method. Once the color tones have been separated well, you can use any of the usual methods that allow separate color control.

Use a green filter so the point of interest becomes dominant in contrast while the most amount of contrast remains available in the sky. Applying a green filter can be accomplished by creating a layer and filling it with a single color of choice (green in this case) and setting the blend mode to multiply prior to B&W conversion.


Apply a graduated mask for lightening up the foreground. This really separates the point-of-interest from the foreground and regains the illusion of bright daylight...

Obviously I have cropped the image to what I believe is pleasing and relevant.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2006, 03:35:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for all your kind help! Tim the photo was taken at Ghost Town in Calico, Nevada. John you multiplied the data by eight? How do you do that ? Is it not my file a 16 bit file when saved into Photoshop? Data interpolated into RGB color planes (no white balance applied).? What do you mean?
OPGR thansks for your input but didn't the light foreground striked you as perhaps too light? The numbers for the lens, what is the purpose? I know these are problably basic questions but I can see lots of knowledge here.
John how did you find out about the exact 19 pixels clipped on the gree channel, how does this translate into the look of the photo?
Ray thanks for your point of view, I wish you could also work on the file.

Muchas gracias again,

Andres
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2006, 06:56:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Always good to have a fiddle...

I only work in colour, so apologies that this is what I have majored on in this image.



The black and white is so-so (but then I am not making any claims that the colour is any better, just what I am more proficient at).




I had converted this is Rawshooter 2006 to get a TIFF file...nothinig rocket science in this step (and only because my photoshop doesnt recognised the rebel files).

First step is to adjust the tonality of the image:

1..Duplicate background layer and convert it to greyscale (using either adjustments->channel mixer, or hue/saturation..nb this is converting the layer and NOT adding an adjustment layer above the copy of background). In this case I used 100% green channel.

2...Use shadow/highlight on the copy of the background layer. Tonal width for shadows 80% and highlights 20%, amount 100% both and radius approx 300px both).

3...Add a curves adjustment layer and twiddle the curve to get a well distributed histogram.

4..Create a folder in the layers pallete, add both the duplicated background and curve layer into the folder and then set blending mode of the folder to luminosity.

--The above steps tend to rebalance the tones in the image to give better local contrast and better shaped histogram where there are lumps at either end of the curve.

Next are colour adjustments:
1..Added hue/sat layer and boosted red and yellow to bring out textures in the rocks
2..Selective colour layer and added cyan and black to red, and added some black to yellow to improve foreground colours. Adjusted blue/cyan a little for the sky
3...Added brightness(-30)/Contrast(-5) layer and then on the layer mask excluded the front of the hut and other details (my feeling was that the image was too flat and that the attention needed to be focused on the rock leading up to the door and the door itself whilst de-emphasising the surrounding environment).
4...Added levels to clip highlights, though on layer mask excluded highlights in clouds to prevent blowing out details.

et viola (as Motzart used to say).
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2006, 10:04:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John you multiplied the data by eight? How do you do that ?

The program I used to read the RAW file loads it in with levels 0 to 4095.  If I leave it at the scale and save out as a 16-bit TIFF, it is too dark to work with in PS, and awkward to fix with the levels tool.  

Quote
Is it not my file a 16 bit file when saved into Photoshop?  Data interpolated into RGB color planes (no white balance applied).? What do you mean?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't load it into ACR.  It was not converted; it was left in RAW color space, which is just the 3 color planes interpolated within themselves to get a full-res image.  I did that in a programmed called IRIS, and DCRAW can do similar.  The idea is to not corrupt the three B&W images that the camera took, which is what RAW actually is; one with a red filter, one with a green filter, and one with a blue filter.  Proper conversion loses the purity of the individual channels, for the sake of color enhancement.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2006, 11:00:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I did succeed in downloading this RAW image. As John and Richowens mentioned, after downloading the pages of gibberish, right clicking on the link in this thread and saving the target produced the fastest 8MB download I've ever seen (as a result of previous caching by the OS). After changing the file extension, the file was usable.

I've played around with this image for a while, but never succeeded in getting anything better than, or sometimes even as good as, the images already posted.

So clearly, there would be no point in my posting my efforts, especially considering I can only produce LL thumbnails which are unreadable by the majority of LL readers.

I have not yet worked out how to get my images, permanently residing in Photo.net galleries, transferred (or duplicated) to LL. The images appear in the LL post at the time I insert them, but refuse to re-appear later, or the next time I connect to LL.

Anyway, some more comments on the existing renditions of this 'pile of rubble' (sorry!, Andres   ).

The essential problem is focus of interest. The sky competes with the foreground. In B&W there are so many competing shades of grey, the eye does not know where to settle, which is why I thought Richowens' more contrasty foreground had slightly more appeal than John Sheehy's more accurate and detailed foreground, but over all, John's rendition seems to have captured all the nuances, subtle shades and detail more faithfully across the entire image.

However, Andres atempt (the OP) is quite satisfactory. A well balnced rendition which is as good as any, outside of nitpicking.

Tim's rendition is interesting because he has addressed the compositional difficulties. By darkening the blue sky to near black, he has removed the competition of another expanse of grey (the original image consisting largely of competeing shades of grey). The eye is not directed to black, but the things next to it which stand out by contrast. So essentially, in Tim's rendition we have prominent clouds, which are not too bright, the stone shack, which is the centre of interest, and the large rock on the right, leading the eye to the shack.

A central part of the shack is the door, which Tim has lightened, and this is more satisfying than the darker door in the other images, because the large rock on the right points directly to the door.

Opgr has tackled the compositionaly difficulties by cropping, which emphasises the fact that the shack is the focus of interest. Unfortunately, the excessively light foreground creates a certain confusion in the viewer. Is the shack really the focus of interest, or am I supposed to be seeing something interesting in the foreground?

David's rendition is also impressive and quite consistent with his previous images posted on this forum. He likes fully saturated colors. Unfortunately, his B&W version puts the door of the shack into too much shade.

It's a matter of 'take your pick'. I guess I'm neither right nor wrong. Just expressing my opinion   .
Logged
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2006, 12:23:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray very interesting and different ponit of view, I am glad you took the time to evaluate the image at this lenght. I have also learned very different workflows.. ".4..Create a folder in the layers pallete, add both the duplicated background and curve layer into the folder and then set blending mode of the folder to luminosity."
That is something new for me.
Personally, I have now decided to also clone out the 2 concrete bricks by the entrance of the shack.

Thanks,

Andres
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2006, 03:59:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but over all, John's rendition seems to have captured all the nuances, subtle shades and detail more faithfully across the entire image.

I would like to note that this was done without any double/blended conversions of any sort, just the channel mixer adding/subtracting the three RW color channels, and a simple curve applied (one point pulled to the upper left).  I've never been a fan of multiple conversions, although I see the use for multiple captures.

Quote
It's a matter of 'take your pick'. I guess I'm neither right nor wrong. Just expressing my opinion   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be nice to have a program that took the RAW file and made an animated version of the image that faded through all kinds of tonal interpretations; a living image.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2006, 09:38:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would be nice to have a program that took the RAW file and made an animated version of the image that faded through all kinds of tonal interpretations; a living image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And you just click 'stop' when you see the tonal interpretation you like most   .

I'd be worried here about the total number of possible permutations that are visually distinct. In a sense, we already have an animation of tonal changes as we move the sliders in Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight adjustment tools, or play around with curves adjustments.

The problem as I see it, results from the fact the eye has an almost instant iris adjustment mechanism (aperture control) which adjusts to the lighting conditions in any portion of a scene we happen to be directly looking at. A bright spot in the scene might contain detail we can see clearly, when our attention is directed towards it. But the camera shot, with a fixed aperture, will blow the detail. Likewise, our pupils dilate when our gaze is directed towards a shadow area in the scene to be photographed, and such shadows will probably contain more visible detail than the camera can capture with its fixed aperture.

Even if we take bracketed exposures on a tripod to make sure we capture everything the eye saw, there's still the problem of adjusting the relative tonalities and contrast, after blending the images, to recreate the 'impression' or 'emotion' of the captured scene.

And this, I guess, is where the 'art' comes in.
Logged
larkvi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2006, 07:29:09 PM »
ReplyReply



I thought I would offer another interpretation of the image. Something of an infrared look, I suppose--I really wanted to darken the sky, and control the highlights on the surrounding rocks in order to bring out the hut. If interested, you may find a larger version here--I think it shows some of the changes better.

In Lightroom:

Color Temp: 5500K, Tint: +4, Blacks: 9
Tone Curve: Compression 62, Luminance -37, Brightness 44, Contrast 27, Compression -65, Luminance -27
This curve brightens the mid-tones, which lowers the contrast between the highlights on the rocks and makes the light look less harsh, while maintaining the shadows.

I cropped it to get rid of the viewing platform--the only element I really wanted on the left was the shadow in the wall next to the hut--I really wanted to show the hut, rocks, sky, and clouds in the crop, and each, in a sense, has a side of this image.

I still find the image to be a little harsh, so I decide to split tone it, cooling the shadows and warming the highlights very slightly: Highlights: Hue 55, Sat 34 ; Shadows: Hue 242, Sat 25

Though I usually use Convert to Black and White Pro for conversion, and prefer it, I decided to use the Channel Mixer in Lightroom, with these settings: Red: 13, Yellow: 36, Green: 39, all others zero. All that leaves me with this:



In Photoshop:

The harshness of detail is still a little too much for me, and I want to soften both the highlights and the shadows. To do this, I duplicate the layer, apply a moderate Gaussian Blur to the new layer, and set the opacity to 10%, which is the least I can use and still notice the difference. I find that, for me, this makes it easier for my eye to look at the image. I masked out the clouds, because they did not need any additional softness.

The sky was still too light for my taste, and I wanted to do something about the rocks, so I applied a curves layer in which I pulled the shadows down (I pulled the point 1/3 of the way across the curve down to less than 1/8 of the way up--see photo). This fixed the sky, but I had to mask out the hut, to keep it bright. The change was too much for the rocks, too, so I went over all off them on the mask with a brush letting in the change at 33% opacity, being careful of the shadow line on the left, and after some fiddling, that worked out for me. Here is a photo of the settings:



-S
« Last Edit: August 23, 2006, 02:38:51 PM by larkvi » Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2006, 11:30:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray very interesting and different ponit of view, I am glad you took the time to evaluate the image at this lenght. I have also learned very different workflows.. ".4..Create a folder in the layers pallete, add both the duplicated background and curve layer into the folder and then set blending mode of the folder to luminosity."
That is something new for me.
Personally, I have now decided to also clone out the 2 concrete bricks by the entrance of the shack.

Thanks,

Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andres, I know it is a matter of personal taste, but I really like the two concrete bricks in the doorway opening. Rather than being a distraction or unsightly, I think they add a  fascinating element of narrative and interest.

Thank you Andres and all the contributers who have posted their workflow. This post has provided me with a fabulous tutorial on different techniques for processing an image.

Julie
Logged

Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2006, 01:05:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Larkvi, very different look, it seems as if was taken at dusk. Care to tell us how did you do it?
Logged
larkvi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2006, 02:40:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Larkvi, very different look, it seems as if was taken at dusk. Care to tell us how did you do it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was distracted earlier, and forgot to put that in, but I edited the post above and added the information. I am not claiming it is the best workflow, but it works okay for me, and I hope there is something useful in it.

-S
Logged

Roaring Bearcub
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2006, 05:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

This is just my own personal version, having stumbled upon this thread just now. Feel free to comment.
Converted using ACR (minimal adjustments),
Image sharpened with Smart Sharpen, and contrast increased a little with Unsharp Mask,
Hue/Sat. layer above photo set to Colour blending mode, +180 hue, +79 Saturation,
Another Hue/Sat. layer above set to -100 Saturation (normal blending mode),
And finally a curves layer with an S-curve darkening dark areas, and brightening light areas (biased towards the dark tones I suppose).

Just my version.

[attachment=918:attachment]

Edit: sorry, just wondering - how do you make the attached file look like the others in this post? Sorry, this is my first attempt.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2006, 05:57:55 AM by Roaring Bearcub » Logged
larkvi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2006, 11:19:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edit: sorry, just wondering - how do you make the attached file look like the others in this post? Sorry, this is my first attempt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just size it to 800px or less wide and use the IMG button to link to the image.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad