Lucked into this one, what could be improved.

It is possible to fix these problems without noise, but from my experience, it requires a lot more work. It's usually more enjoyable for me to retake the picture anyway.

I definitely have to get my monitor calibrated/replaced!!
I cannot see the added noise. I dunno, maybe I've been looking at this screen too long.
 
how did you brighten up the rocks and shrubs so drastically? what took does that? thanks

nytmair,
This was a somewhat advanced procedure in PhotoShop V7. I manipulated the "foreground light/background darker" principle to create the illusion of 3-dimensions.

If you are serious and want to know the particular PhotoShop procedures, I will list the steps here. I am happiest when I am helping.

Rebel
 
canonrebel said:
I definitely have to get my monitor calibrated/replaced!!
I cannot see the added noise. I dunno, maybe I've been looking at this screen too long.
On my monitor I can see it mostly in the clouds. There really isn't any on the rocks. I've noticed it's really only the areas that are over or under exposed that start to show noise when you edit them too much in photoshop. I'm also using a Mac so pictures are naturally brighter. I've noticed that noise is seen a little easier when it's brighten up. It also depends on how picky you want to be with noise reduction. There have been several times when I didn't see any noise in my pictures but others have.

I do agree with you in that photoshop does let you explore many different creative avenues. If you edited it in a way you think looks good but there's too much degration of the picture than you can just go out and retake the picture with the photoshopped image as a reference point. In a way it allows you to previsualize what will look good for certain pictures and then you can go out and retake them. Basically you know what you want so it's easier to expose the picture to your liking. This is similar to bracketing when you are shooting. It will give you different exposures to see which one you like.

What I find useful is knowing photoshop's limitations so when I take a picture I think to myself if the results would look good with photoshop editing. If not then I retake the picture with the idea of fixing certain parts in photoshop. For example, if drdan would have underexposed the picture a little he could have brighten up only the rock areas with the sky perfectly exposed from the camera.

From me underexposure is easier to work with than overexposure. Although I still try to always get the best picture out of the camera first and try to only do a limited amount of photoshop work. This is only my personally philosophy on the subject, so anyone can disagree, but if I'm doing a lot of corrections in photoshop then I'm not taking the picture correctly. Just make note of what you are constantly fixing in photoshop and then try to fix it while taking the pictures.

I'm usually happier with my pictures when I do less photoshop editing. Too much photoshop work can actually make my pictures look worst.
 
A little more editing, thanks for all the great advice guys. Is this over the top in any way. Any noticeable artifacts, etc.



DSC09897re650c.jpg
 
Harpper said:
canonrebel said:
I definitely have to get my monitor calibrated/replaced!!
I cannot see the added noise. I dunno, maybe I've been looking at this screen too long.
On my monitor I can see it mostly in the clouds. There really isn't any on the rocks. I've noticed it's really only the areas that are over or under exposed that start to show noise when you edit them too much in photoshop. I'm also using a Mac so pictures are naturally brighter. I've noticed that noise is seen a little easier when it's brighten up. It also depends on how picky you want to be with noise reduction. There have been several times when I didn't see any noise in my pictures but others have.

I do agree with you in that photoshop does let you explore many different creative avenues. If you edited it in a way you think looks good but there's too much degration of the picture than you can just go out and retake the picture with the photoshopped image as a reference point. In a way it allows you to previsualize what will look good for certain pictures and then you can go out and retake them. Basically you know what you want so it's easier to expose the picture to your liking. This is similar to bracketing when you are shooting. It will give you different exposures to see which one you like.

What I find useful is knowing photoshop's limitations so when I take a picture I think to myself if the results would look good with photoshop editing. If not then I retake the picture with the idea of fixing certain parts in photoshop. For example, if drdan would have underexposed the picture a little he could have brighten up only the rock areas with the sky perfectly exposed from the camera.

From me underexposure is easier to work with than overexposure. Although I still try to always get the best picture out of the camera first and try to only do a limited amount of photoshop work. This is only my personally philosophy on the subject, so anyone can disagree, but if I'm doing a lot of corrections in photoshop then I'm not taking the picture correctly. Just make note of what you are constantly fixing in photoshop and then try to fix it while taking the pictures.

I'm usually happier with my pictures when I do less photoshop editing. Too much photoshop work can actually make my pictures look worst.

Harpper, I agree with you absolutely.
I've looked at some of your submissions, and obviously you are more gifted/experienced than I am. Maybe I can be like you when I growup and get big.

the rebel
 
Okay, I'm hoping this is final. The one I posted above is too garish, especially the sky, especially when printed. So I started completely from scratch and redid this. It looks a lot better printed than it did before but still looks pretty natural. Here is the resized version. This is a good learning picture.

DSC09897re650final.jpg
 
canonrebel said:
Harpper, I agree with you absolutely.
Oh sorry, most of the post wasn't directed at you. I was just talking generally. Photoshop just takes practice, but it's better not to completely rely on it. There have been plenty of pictures I had to throw away because I couldn't fix them to my liking.

drdan said:
Okay, I'm hoping this is final. The one I posted above is too garish, especially the sky, especially when printed. So I started completely from scratch and redid this. It looks a lot better printed than it did before but still looks pretty natural. Here is the resized version. This is a good learning picture.
You beat me to the punch drdan. Your last one looks better and sometimes starting from scratch is a better choice or retaking the picture if you can.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top