Along the River

[zulu422]

I walk along the river. Great walking trails. Looking for birds. They are scarce, so the wider zoom comes out to try and share the scenery.

C&C always valued. Thanks for looking.

 

[PJcam]

Nice set zulu42, there can be so much character in trees and it often shows best when the leaves are off.

I like the position of light in each too.

 

[smoke665]

Good set, though the second is my favorite!

 

[BrentC]

Very nice set. I struggle with landscape myself and would love to get shots like this. I really like #2 and #3. Those trees give good images.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

Really love that 2nd shot, beautiful.

 

[Cortian]

Very nice set. Nice use of light and shadow, z42.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

Love the third photo -- splendid!

Got some things for you to consider and I'll just go ahead and show them all to you to start in a side by side:

I know you have LR, don't know what camera took this photo and/or what other software you have available.

Biggest difference is sky color. Apart from sunrise/sunset there's not a lot of variation in the color of the daytime sky unless you've got some type of air contaminant involved. So maybe that's the smoke left over from burning half of southern CA but most likely it's just your camera's software. In the sRGB color space a clear blue afternoon sky will have a Hue value of 211. Once the sky is blue your photo wonderfully takes full advantage of the color complement pair -- blue/orange. For me no two other colors look so good together.

If you can load your original into PS and examine the image histogram you see it falls short of the right side of the graph -- especially if you look at the luminosity histogram. Here's histograms for both your and my version of your photo.

Notice that the last approx. 1/5 of the graph on the right is completely unused by the data in your photo. As a result the total tone range of your photo is compressed and it completely lacks any bright tones. Visual difference is that my version appears brighter and has more contrast. This get's into the messier issue of expression trumps science -- if that's the way you want it to look then you win. But as a general rule we prefer images that deliver a full range of tones and so graph to fill the histogram corner to corner. If you depart from that then hopefully you've done it deliberately and thoughtfully.

The last thing I did was more just for fun but I thought you'd find it interesting. You obviously have a very wide lens. One liability of using lenses like that is called volume deformation -- that tree on the far left looks like it's being stretched into the upper corner. I like wide lenses too, a lot, and I use them enough that I long ago invested in some special software: Overview | DxO.com. ViewPoint has the ability to counter classic wideangle volume deformation to a degree. If your photo contained EXIF data Viewpoint would have been able to make lens specific adjustments.

Congrats -- great photo.

Joe

 

[BrentC]

Love the third photo -- splendid!

Got some things for you to consider and I'll just go ahead and show them all to you to start in a side by side:

View attachment 153062

I know you have LR, don't know what camera took this photo and/or what other software you have available.

Biggest difference is sky color. Apart from sunrise/sunset there's not a lot of variation in the color of the daytime sky unless you've got some type of air contaminant involved. So maybe that's the smoke left over from burning half of southern CA but most likely it's just your camera's software. In the sRGB color space a clear blue afternoon sky will have a Hue value of 211. Once the sky is blue your photo wonderfully takes full advantage of the color complement pair -- blue/orange. For me no two other colors look so good together.

If you can load your original into PS and examine the image histogram you see it falls short of the right side of the graph -- especially if you look at the luminosity histogram. Here's histograms for both your and my version of your photo.

View attachment 153063

Notice that the last approx. 1/5 of the graph on the right is completely unused by the data in your photo. As a result the total tone range of your photo is compressed and it completely lacks any bright tones. Visual difference is that my version appears brighter and has more contrast. This get's into the messier issue of expression trumps science -- if that's the way you want it to look then you win. But as a general rule we prefer images that deliver a full range of tones and so graph to fill the histogram corner to corner. If you depart from that then hopefully you've done it deliberately and thoughtfully.

The last thing I did was more just for fun but I thought you'd find it interesting. You obviously have a very wide lens. One liability of using lenses like that is called volume deformation -- that tree on the far left looks like it's being stretched into the upper corner. I like wide lenses too, a lot, and I use them enough that I long ago invested in some special software: Overview | DxO.com. ViewPoint has the ability to counter classic wideangle volume deformation to a degree. If your photo contained EXIF data Viewpoint would have been able to make lens specific adjustments.

Congrats -- great photo.

Joe

Did you just adjust the whites/light to bring it over tho the right?

 

[Ysarex87 81]

Love the third photo -- splendid!

Got some things for you to consider and I'll just go ahead and show them all to you to start in a side by side:

View attachment 153062

I know you have LR, don't know what camera took this photo and/or what other software you have available.

Biggest difference is sky color. Apart from sunrise/sunset there's not a lot of variation in the color of the daytime sky unless you've got some type of air contaminant involved. So maybe that's the smoke left over from burning half of southern CA but most likely it's just your camera's software. In the sRGB color space a clear blue afternoon sky will have a Hue value of 211. Once the sky is blue your photo wonderfully takes full advantage of the color complement pair -- blue/orange. For me no two other colors look so good together.

If you can load your original into PS and examine the image histogram you see it falls short of the right side of the graph -- especially if you look at the luminosity histogram. Here's histograms for both your and my version of your photo.

View attachment 153063

Notice that the last approx. 1/5 of the graph on the right is completely unused by the data in your photo. As a result the total tone range of your photo is compressed and it completely lacks any bright tones. Visual difference is that my version appears brighter and has more contrast. This get's into the messier issue of expression trumps science -- if that's the way you want it to look then you win. But as a general rule we prefer images that deliver a full range of tones and so graph to fill the histogram corner to corner. If you depart from that then hopefully you've done it deliberately and thoughtfully.

The last thing I did was more just for fun but I thought you'd find it interesting. You obviously have a very wide lens. One liability of using lenses like that is called volume deformation -- that tree on the far left looks like it's being stretched into the upper corner. I like wide lenses too, a lot, and I use them enough that I long ago invested in some special software: Overview | DxO.com. ViewPoint has the ability to counter classic wideangle volume deformation to a degree. If your photo contained EXIF data Viewpoint would have been able to make lens specific adjustments.

Congrats -- great photo.

Joe

Did you just adjust the whites/light to bring it over tho the right?

Since the photo was already a JPEG I took it straight to PS rather than LR. In PS I used Levels, but yes the goal was to get the white point raised. In LR the Whites slider sets the white point.

Joe

 

[zulu422]

Nice set zulu42, there can be so much character in trees and it often shows best when the leaves are off.

I like the position of light in each too.

Thanks very much PJ. I agree, bare trees add an automatic mood to a photo.

Good set, though the second is my favorite!

I really appreciate that, smoke. Thank you.

Very nice set. I struggle with landscape myself and would love to get shots like this. I really like #2 and #3. Those trees give good images.

Thank you kindly Brent. I just started reading a book about landscape photography, hoping that will help.

Really love that 2nd shot, beautiful.

!

Very nice set. Nice use of light and shadow, z42.

Thanks so much, Cortian. Low light is a good friend to all of us!


@Ysarex , Let me say a heartfelt thank you for taking the time to respond as such. I'm going to respond more completely as I find more time.

 

[zulu422]

A couple of shooting notes, and I apologize that I didn't include these in my original post. Posting for critique, the notes can provide valuable information. Embarrassingly, I'm at work and still don't have the exposure settings to share.

I hoped for these shots to be good images, but I also shot them as an exercise in processing and a test of my computer's handling of large files.
Taken with my new D800 and a 24-85 1:3.5-4.5G shot in raw. You will see what I mean by "large files":

First image is HDR and Panorama. Camera in vertical orientation, shoot 3 exposures, rotate camera, shoot 3 exposures. In LR, first merged to HDR, then stitched to panorama. Six raw 36mp files into one project, plus adjustments. Yes, it slowed down LR lol. Plus, I probably could have gotten almost the same shot in one exposure

Second image is HDR, 3 exposures. I actually took about 5 exposures, almost black to totally blown, but chose 3 exposures to merge. Not sure if I should merge exposures that are one or two stops apart, or go for a more extreme range. My goal in landscape HDR is to avoid the overcooked look, but have some increased range.

Third shot is another panorama. Not HDR. Camera in landscape orientation, zoomed out to 24mm. I wondered what LR was going to do with all the distortion. Playing with the different merge options, I chose the perspective layout projection. Also, the right side of the panorama was cropped quite a bit on the right side, so you don't see the heavy distortion as much on the right.

@Ysarex
Your edit is brilliant. Took the photograph to another level, and I can't thank you enough.

Clear blue sky has a hue value of 211. I must have missed that day in school lol. Thank you so much for including that tidbit! I had a hard time with the sky color. Did you just adjust the overall WB until the blue had that value?

I saw what the right side of the histogram showed, and I really struggled with it. I was trying to correct the whites in LR, but everything I did to try and fill in that side of the histogram left the picture looking too sparkly, unnatural contrast. Specifically, I didn't like what raising the whites, highlights sliders, or curves adjustments, were doing to the highlights on the little green sage plants lower left and the brightest yellow brush along the far shoreline. Somehow you managed to bring the highlights up without making it look over processed. I'm going to try and match your edits!

After the panorama merge, I left the perspective alone. Your edit of the perspective is another great improvement. I also like the aspect ratio it created. I wonder if I can get close to that with the vertical perspective adjustment in LR's lens correction panel.

Your edit is the image I wish I had posted. Your comments were extremely helpful. I just cannot thank you enough.

Finally, a critique of myself. Seeing these three images next to each other in this thread, I realized a real problem. If you look at them, especially from the horizon down, they all have the exact same freaking composition! That is a rut I need to get out of quick.

 

[zulu422]

Maybe the highlights or contrast is so hyped on my monitor, that it looks like crap when the histogram is balanced. A lot of my images end up with the right side of the histogram lopped off.

 

[fishing4sanity]

I wish I had that river to walk along, beautiful area and I could use more walking. I was favoring #2, but that Ysarex edit is great & informative, I wish I knew enough to garner its full teaching power.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

@Ysarex
Your edit is brilliant. Took the photograph to another level, and I can't thank you enough.

Don't flatter me too much, my wife says I already have too big a head.

Clear blue sky has a hue value of 211. I must have missed that day in school lol. Thank you so much for including that tidbit! I had a hard time with the sky color. Did you just adjust the overall WB until the blue had that value?

211 sRGB -- in a different color space it's a different value. I did not just adjust the WB. Unfortunately that won't work once the raw file has been rendered to RGB. It would work with a raw (NEF) file. So instead I targeted the blue and altered only that. I used PS and the Hue/Saturation tool. That's far and away the biggest impact I had on the image; bringing the sky color around to normal.

I saw what the right side of the histogram showed, and I really struggled with it. I was trying to correct the whites in LR, but everything I did to try and fill in that side of the histogram left the picture looking too sparkly, unnatural contrast. Specifically, I didn't like what raising the whites, highlights sliders, or curves adjustments, were doing to the highlights on the little green sage plants lower left and the brightest yellow brush along the far shoreline. Somehow you managed to bring the highlights up without making it look over processed. I'm going to try and match your edits!

Black and white points are really critical. Set them and if you don't like what happens to other sections of the photo that's what the adjustment brush is for.

After the panorama merge, I left the perspective alone. Your edit of the perspective is another great improvement. I also like the aspect ratio it created. I wonder if I can get close to that with the vertical perspective adjustment in LR's lens correction panel.

Viewpoint's capabilities are unique. You may do better in LR especially if you have the latest version (some improvements in that area), but if you need what Viewpoint can do then only Viewpoint can do it.

Your edit is the image I wish I had posted. Your comments were extremely helpful. I just cannot thank you enough.

Happy to help. I took the time because the photo is so good -- nice shot.

Joe

Finally, a critique of myself. Seeing these three images next to each other in this thread, I realized a real problem. If you look at them, especially from the horizon down, they all have the exact same freaking composition! That is a rut I need to get out of quick.

 

[Derrel]

Glad to hear you got that D800! Agreed, the last picture is a nice one. The foreground elements help it a lot.