Emphasizing

[DjBeau]

Hey people

I have a picture of a church here and I'm quite satisfied with its dramatic effect. I do wish to enhance this effect, though, by emphasizing the church a bit more. Try to take a look at this picture by Ansel Adams and look how the mountains stand out from the skies: http://www.fotograffiti.it/albums/Ansel-Adams/Ansel_Adams_Mountains.jpg

How would I achieve this effect on the church? I can use the marquee tool to cut out the church but what should I do with it then to optain the emphasizing effect?

Here is the picture (by the way, how do I add the picture directly to this post, so you can see it here in the forum in stead of being redirected?

 

[rmh159]

For me the mountains stand out because they're darker than the clouds and the lines are vertical where the lines in the clouds are horizontal.

To acheive something similiar in your pic I'd crop it tighter to the church and increase the contrast in the sky to REALLY make it dark. I'd also burn out some of the clouds around the church to get rid of the bright white parts.

I'd also seperate the sky and church onto seperate layers.

I think the fine line in this is to edit it up without overdoing it and making it look fake. Ansel's shot doesn't really look fake and I think it's easy to cross that line without realizing it.

 

[droyz2000]

Ansel Adams was part of a group called F64. A lot of his photos were very long exposures at very very small apertures. Not to mention he was brilliant at printing.

 

[DjBeau]

Thanks, I'll try the things mentioned above.

One question though: Why seperate the picture in layers? Wouldn't it be the same using the marquee tool so I'd only work on what's marked?

 

[JIP]

Are you sure that is an Ansel Adams image??. It looks Photoshopped to me or painted or something. It does not look like a real scene. To me it looks like someone just blurred the sky I would have to see this image somewhere with his name on it to prove to me it is a real image. I would imagine if you wanted to get this image of your church you can just PS it.

 

[LeftBehind]

The image looks like an amateur 3d Model, that's just my opinion though.

 

[DjBeau]

Funny how taste varies I like the mountain photograph.

if you wanted to get this image of your church you can just PS it.

Since when is "PS'ing" a verb? It's completely useless as a verb! I asked WHAT to do, not where I should do it...

 

[Mike_E]

Hello, try cutting out the church (after fixing the perspective in transform) and burning the edges a little, about 2 pixels wide should do.

 

[DjBeau]

That sounds like something I could use. Only thing is I'm not entirely sure about what you mean by fixing the perspective.
And burn the edges? With the burn tool or is there an easier or more precise way?

 

[TCimages]

Is this close to what you are trying to achieve?

 

[DjBeau]

Well, in a way. I see you have blurred the background a little, and I guess that is one way to make the church stand out. I guess what's really the problem is that the sun wasn't lighting up the church so much that it stands out from everything else and I'm trying to compensate that. It doesn't work illuminating the church artificially so I'll try to cut it out and burn the edges although I'm not quite sure how to do it (the burning part).

 

[TCimages]

Sorry, I thought it was too simple to be what you wanted. When I look at the mountain shot, IMO, it's the blur that makes the mountiains pop.

 

[DjBeau]

You might be right. Maybe I'm simply not sure what I want Or put differently, maybe I can't really explain it.

 

[three_eyed_otter]

I think you might want to reconsider your composition. Think about the rule of thirds. Consider all of the angles of the church (btw it has alot) and how you want them to "cut up" the exposure. Fill the frame w/more of what you want (i.e., the church). In my opinion the clouds are absolutely necessary in helping to define the roof as well as giving depth to the image. Attached is a photo of a church I shot in August.

have a good one
3Eo

 

[Garbz]

Lol that isn't an Ansel Adams. I am almost certain it was made with TerraGen as a 3D modeling tribute to Ansel Adam's work. I used to play with Terragen back in the days before I had a camera

While he may have been a member of the F/64 group, using f/64 was not a pre-requisite. Some of his photos lack the distance to require these kinds of apertures, and others you can see the moon quite clearly which rules out using f/64 since it would get turned into a streak across the sky.

He was a compositional genius and a master of dynamic range, that's what made his images. Nothing to do with any specific camera setting or format. http://www.andrewsmithgallery.com/exhibitions/anseladams/aa_1430.html