Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What´s your opinion on changing skys in PP  (Read 6893 times)
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2011, 02:52:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Very dramatic image, looks great.  A sky and landscape that were made for each other.

To get really picky, perhaps the lighting direction is different on the cirrus and the ground, and perhaps the shadow edges are a little to hard for slightly diffused sunlight.  But honestly if I just happened across this image on the wall I would be impressed enough not to go looking for those things...unless of course I didn't like the photographer at a personal level. Smiley
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2011, 06:59:54 PM »
ReplyReply

phones lines, power lines, cars, contrails, fences, posts, surveying flags, beer bottles, tires, Slurpee cups, disposable diapers, plastic bags, and occasional non-indigenous nearby plants.

LMAO!

I agree, Bill. The residence gives the (superb!) image a lot more meaning.

I cloned out one of my friends once for a magazine article pix.  He never forgave me.  : )

« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 07:04:33 PM by Peter McLennan » Logged
milt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2011, 03:01:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, the "do you use Photoshop" question at art shows, that's a tough one.  I think I have given a different answer every time I've been asked that, and each time there is this small sense of panic in the back of my mind as I struggle to compose something sensible.  I'd love to hear other opinions on how to answer this question.

--Milt--
Logged

Los Gatos, California | http://miltonbarber.com
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2011, 04:36:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, the "do you use Photoshop" question at art shows, that's a tough one.  I think I have given a different answer every time I've been asked that, and each time there is this small sense of panic in the back of my mind as I struggle to compose something sensible.  I'd love to hear other opinions on how to answer this question.

--Milt--

I just say “yes... of course”.
Even if I can't remember if the file went to PS or not.
So that means for one in ten or twenty shots there is a small gap between reality and what I'm saying. I call this gap “artistic licence”. That is, it would have gone to PS if I'd thought of it.
If someone wants to debate the matter further I say that Photoshop was created to help us realise our artistic vision.
Never had anyone come up with an objection to that.
David
Logged

milt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2011, 09:11:34 PM »
ReplyReply

In all likelihood, a strong reply like that will cause them to express their objection by simply turning away and not buying anything.  I'd prefer something that would at least be likely to engage them in discussion.

--Milt--
Logged

Los Gatos, California | http://miltonbarber.com
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2011, 09:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I get 10x more "What camera do you use?" than the Photoshop question at art shows. To the first I answer that I use Canon's largest digital camera. To the second I answer Yes. It's been my experience that those and similar questions are just ways to initiate a conversation than to question the "purity" of my art.

The only negative response to the yes I use Photoshop was from a particularly snooty photographer who bragged that she only used "natural" film photography, "natural" light, and didn't own a computer. To say her work labeled "never manipulated" suffered in quality with her Costco prints goes without saying.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2011, 10:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

But the "do you use Photoshop" question really means "are you deceiving me with a contrived, lying image?"

The general public now uses "Photoshopped" to refer to photos that misrepresent the original subject in some substantial way.  I think it all started when a guy at the Iranian Information Service decided to (badly) rubber stamp a few extra rockets into a press release photo.  And all those skinny, unblemished models don't help us much either.

Searching "photoshop liquify" on youtube returns 907 examples of how fix overabundant fannies.  And you get 322,000 hits on Google.  And "photoshop manipulation" returns 4,360,000 googlehits.

Bottom line...the public doesn't trust us anymore.  Photographs ALWAYS lie.

Yes, and of course "what camera do you use" is King of the Questions.  I answer, "a 21 or 12 mp digital camera."  People then stick their noses right up to those 200+ megapixel panoramic stitches and say "wow!".  Then sometimes I explain about stitches, and sometimes I don't.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4053



« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2011, 03:54:30 AM »
ReplyReply

  this is the ofending image
It's a dramatic sky which looks good with the rest of the scene. However, I can see a very thin, bright white line along the mountaintops, partcularly towards the right, which looks unnatural.

Jeremy
Logged
MGH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2011, 09:35:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jeremy....Thanks for looking and thanks for your coment. I also saw that thin white line and thought that my selecting tecnique wasn´t up to much, which is very posible as I´ve only been useing Photoshop for a month. But that line is there in the RAW file, it´s a cornice which is overhanging snow formed by the wind just like you see in the forground. If the sun is from behind the light shines through and so you see a white line. Something to lookout for in the mountains as it´s a sign of avalanche danger. I went far too close to the edge to take this shot, I hope you think it was worth it.

   Mark
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2011, 12:12:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Nature will sometimes present you with a scene that looks either excessively or badly post processed.  What's a landscape photographer to do?  In this case the horizon line shows gradations that to my eye looks natural.  The bad post processing version of that usually just looks like a single toned, sharp-edged line.

I just looked at the "offending" picture again without my techo-glasses on and it's a darned good shot.  Really like the way the arc at the bottom and middle is carried on by the sky.  It's the kind of picture that worries me when somebody else has it at a show I'm in.   Shocked
Logged
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2011, 12:39:38 PM »
ReplyReply

But the "do you use Photoshop" question really means "are you deceiving me with a contrived, lying image?"

Now that I think about it there is an element of "disbelief" when an art show patron sees landscapes that are really beyond what they can shoot and print themselves. As more of the point and shoot crowd use better cameras each year they still see a world of difference from what their own resulting prints show. They usually use PS Elements or some such software to enhance their images but lack the experience to do a very good job of it. That plus the lack of a color managed work flow including basic printer/paper profiles. So in a way they are wondering if there is some other magic software they could use to get better results. I had a woman voice exactly that at an art show yesterday. She had lots of images she had accumulated over the years but hated her prints no matter what she tried on her computer.

Going way beyond changing skies:
There are also some art show photographers who deliberately push the saturation and contrast controls (and crazy HDR effects) way beyond what most of us would see as prudent. Many art show patrons are drawn to the most garish of images and in many cases that makes the sale. In some shows that may be the best way to stay in business. A shopper who has walked past a garish booth may well be aware of the "deception" and is simply trying to ascertain if you have a better touch with the same tools.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4053



« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2011, 01:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jeremy....Thanks for looking and thanks for your coment. I also saw that thin white line and thought that my selecting tecnique wasn´t up to much, which is very posible as I´ve only been useing Photoshop for a month. But that line is there in the RAW file, it´s a cornice which is overhanging snow formed by the wind just like you see in the forground. If the sun is from behind the light shines through and so you see a white line. Something to lookout for in the mountains as it´s a sign of avalanche danger. I went far too close to the edge to take this shot, I hope you think it was worth it.
Fair enough: I wondered if you had merely demonstrated how difficult it can be to add a sky (I know - I've tried and, more often than not, failed to get it done to my own satisfaction).

Yes, I do think it was worth it - but only because you survived!

Jeremy
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2011, 01:52:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the many nuances of the knife edges and the snow made shadows. It would be a good one for color reproduction.

It looks like really fine back-country alpine, but i can't quite gage the slope. Did you ski the bowl after getting the shot?
Logged

MGH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2011, 04:00:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi...Yes I was mountain sking when I took the shot, I went to the top of the mountain and then skied down.

Here´s the color version.
Logged
MGH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2011, 04:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone used the "Blend if sliders" to change a blue sky ? That way there´s no selecting, here´s a video I found today showing how.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJssJWZ2t_Y&feature=feedf
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2011, 06:13:42 PM »
ReplyReply

> Hi...Yes I was mountain sking when I took the shot, I went to the top of the mountain and then skied down.

I love back country skiing!

> Here´s the color version.

That is truly succulent!. Way nicer than the very good B&W
Logged

kimballistic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2011, 08:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Can we see it with the original sky?
Logged
kimballistic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2011, 08:53:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone used the "Blend if sliders" to change a blue sky ? That way there´s no selecting, here´s a video I found today showing how.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJssJWZ2t_Y&feature=feedf

Now that I've watched that video, I'm much more inclined to accept a changed sky as long as

1) the sky is not the primary focus
2) the replacement sky is not changing the narrative of the photo (adding dramatic storm clouds, for example)

This has also helped me understand why I'm OK with removing trash, guard rails, power lines, etc. as well.

Thank you!
Logged
MGH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2011, 05:02:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi bfkimball....Yes you can see thee original.  This is one reason why I´m loveing Photoshop you can save PSD files with all your layers intact, I can open my PSD turn off the new sky layer and make a copy so easy. If I was a better photographer and took more photos worth editing storage would be a problem, these PSD files are big over 300 MB each.
  Let me know if you think I did the right thing changing the sky.
Logged
kimballistic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2011, 08:58:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I say go for it and enjoy it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad