Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mountain scene  (Read 2441 times)
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« on: July 03, 2009, 01:30:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Comments?

[attachment=15100:sw.jpg]

Jeremy
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2009, 02:21:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, Good shot. I especially like the diagonal slash of the rock and the subtle colors. A lot of people would push the saturation and make a shot like this look like a cigarette ad minus the Marlboro Man. I guess my only criticism might be that the Marlboro Man isn't in there, so there's some loss of scale. A tree, a person, or a bear would help to convey the size and perspective. But that's a very minor criticism. I like the shot just as it stands.
Logged

Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2009, 02:33:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
Comments?
I like it.  Primarily, I think it could be improved with a bit of a contrast boost and some deeper blacks.

Maybe try an unsharp mask with an amount between 15 and 30 and a radius of 250 ... might do the trick.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 02:34:08 PM by Jeremy Payne » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2009, 02:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, take a shot, but keep the original around for comparison. The subtlety is part of the picture's charm.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2009, 03:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks pretty good, but some of the darker areas in the rocks are as dark as you would want already.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5560



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2009, 11:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Well...?  It's a good image of the mountain, but the way the image is composed, if I start at either the top left of the frame or the bottom of the frame my eye is drawn to the right side, about where the spruce tree is, and then, hovering too close to the cliff, I fall over and out of the picture.

My $0.02

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2009, 01:45:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Jeremy, Good shot. I especially like the diagonal slash of the rock and the subtle colors. A lot of people would push the saturation and make a shot like this look like a cigarette ad minus the Marlboro Man. I guess my only criticism might be that the Marlboro Man isn't in there, so there's some loss of scale. A tree, a person, or a bear would help to convey the size and perspective. But that's a very minor criticism. I like the shot just as it stands.
Thanks, all.

Russ. I tend to think of Marlboro Man as existing in the red rock country of the south western US, without much in the way of greenery or snow, but then I've never been other than very heartily anti-smoking! Happily, there are no bears around there but I take your point on scale.

Jeremy, your suggestion certainly produces an interesting result. Some of the rocks become rather darker than would be ideal, I think, but there is a general increase in punchiness. I think it loses some desirable subtlety, though.

Mike, even the health and safety brigade wouldn't put safety barriers on a Swiss mountain! There is in fact a way out in the direction your eye is drawn, but it's an unfriendly hack down the slope, way underneath the cable car. Is there something wrong with showing a pathway? Should the eye be constrained within a shot? I really don't know the answer.

Jeremy
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2009, 01:53:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
Jeremy, your suggestion certainly produces an interesting result. Some of the rocks become rather darker than would be ideal, I think, but there is a general increase in punchiness. I think it loses some desirable subtlety, though.

Other than not doing it at all - always a choice - there are two things you could try to tone down the effect.

One is to tweak the parameters of the filter ... reduce the 'amount' and/or raise the 'threshold' above zero.

Or, you could select the 'dark' rocks you 'like' by color or by other means, mask them and then apply the filter to the rest while leaving the darkest areas untouched ...

I'm not pushing you to do so ... just explaining how I would approach the same 'problem'.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2009, 11:11:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I like it. The strong diagonal line of the mountain adds tension and makes me wonder just how steep the drop-off is on the other side of that hill.  To me that spruce tree 'contains' the right side of the image due to its proximity to the edge of the frame, and not only does it add some scale but it also adds to the tension of the image, with the big imposing mountain looming overhead. You've even got a bit of side-light on the distant peaks, to create those receding layers and add some depth to the image.

The processing and colors are pretty natural-looking (do I see a very faint halo around the mountain on the left?). I could maybe see adding a bit of local contrast. One way to do this selectively is by duplicating your image to a new layer, performing the USM contrast adjustment there and using the blend-if layer properties to limit the effect to a certain tonal range. Also you can mask out objects where you don't want the extra contrast (for instance any high-contrast edge such as a mountain horizon will probably show a halo when you use large-radius USM for local contrast).
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2009, 02:38:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy and Jeff, thank you both. I take the point about reducing the effect, and confining it, and I really must learn how to use blend-if: I suspect it will be very useful in another shot I'm trying to get right.

The shot has been processed entirely in LR, with a couple of gradients applied.

I also used a fair amount of clarity (+50). I had understood this to be pretty similar in effect to a large-radius unsharp mask, so I was startled by the effect that Jeremy's suggestion had on the shot. Is there a simple explanation of how the two differ? Schewe?

Jeremy
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2009, 06:42:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
I also used a fair amount of clarity (+50). I had understood this to be pretty similar in effect to a large-radius unsharp mask, so I was startled by the effect that Jeremy's suggestion had on the shot. Is there a simple explanation of how the two differ? Schewe?

I'm very curious to hear a thoughtful answer on that myself.

Too many of these little 'tricks' are like magic to me ... I'm not even close to understanding what's going on under the hood ...

So much to learn, so little time!
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2009, 09:10:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also used a fair amount of clarity (+50). I had understood this to be pretty similar in effect to a large-radius unsharp mask, so I was startled by the effect that Jeremy's suggestion had on the shot. Is there a simple explanation of how the two differ? Schewe?
If you use Clarity=50 that could explain the slight halo I see along the edge between the mountain and sky.

As to the difference between large-radius USM and Clarity - they're both similar. The main difference is that with Clarity you only have control over the amount and not the radius. Changing the radius with USM can have a big impact on the effect. A radius of 250 is going to give you different results than if you had used, say 30 or 50 (which is probably closer to the equivalent of what clarity does). When using USM for local contrast, I find it useful to vary the radius anywhere from 25 and up, as different images will respond differently to various radius settings.
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5560



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2009, 12:21:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mike, even the health and safety brigade wouldn't put safety barriers on a Swiss mountain! There is in fact a way out in the direction your eye is drawn, but it's an unfriendly hack down the slope, way underneath the cable car. Is there something wrong with showing a pathway? Should the eye be constrained within a shot? I really don't know the answer.

Jeremy:  I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with showing a pathway in an image, it's just that in this one all of the major lines draw the eye to the same place out of the frame on the right side.  Should the eye be constrained within an image?  That's a very good question.  On one hand, one could say yes, the idea is to keep the eye within the frame because that's why the image is being viewed.  On the other hand, one could say that by leading the eye out of the image it requires the viewer to imagine what lies beyond the frame.  A corollary question would be whether or not the average viewer considers such questions or simply moves on to the next image...?  

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2009, 10:06:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
Jeremy:  I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with showing a pathway in an image, it's just that in this one all of the major lines draw the eye to the same place out of the frame on the right side.  Should the eye be constrained within an image?  That's a very good question.  On one hand, one could say yes, the idea is to keep the eye within the frame because that's why the image is being viewed.  On the other hand, one could say that by leading the eye out of the image it requires the viewer to imagine what lies beyond the frame.  A corollary question would be whether or not the average viewer considers such questions or simply moves on to the next image...?  

Mike.
Jeremy,

I keep coming back to this image, and it keeps growing on me. I think what makes it work for me (and I didn't notice this until after all the comments about the pathway out of the picture) is the little pine tree on the edge of the cliff at the right. It almost looks as if it was planted there for the sole purpose of keeping your eye from falling out of the picture. To me, this adds a nice, whimsical note to a slightly unconventional mountain scene.


Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad