Opening up the shadows...

[JoL]

As a fun 10 minute project and inspired by Serge Ramelli's post processing approach of "-100 Highlights" and "+100 Shadows" as well as a truckload full of saturation, I was looking for turning an ugly photo into something worth looking at.
Where is your comfort limit with rescuing/altering your pictures?

-Johannes

 

[407370]

As a fun 10 minute project and inspired by Serge Ramelli's post processing approach of "-100 Highlights" and "+100 Shadows" as well as a truckload full of saturation, I was looking for turning an ugly photo into something worth looking at.
Where is your comfort limit with rescuing/altering your pictures?

-Johannes

Oh there is no limit. I see a big sky like this and think of tone mapping or aggressive noise reduction:

 

[Braineack]

Ahhhh&h&hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Why?

Tone mapping should be punishable to the fully extent of the law.

using tapatalk.

 

[CmazzJK]

Ahhhh&h&hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Why?

Tone mapping should be punishable to the fully extent of the law.

using tapatalk.

LOL, when I started photography not too long ago I used to think this stuff looked cool. Then I saw work by people like Frans Lanting or David Noton and decided that good pictures are good pictures and no matter how much I "jazzed up" my many crappy pictures, they still sucked big time. Now I can't stand the highlights/shadows -100/+100, clarity-+100 look.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I'll do whatever it takes, so long as they dont end up looking cartoony-HDR.

 

[Usul]

It's not easy for me to find the right moment when I should stop pushing clarity, higlights and shadows. But as much I'm taking pictures as less I'm pushing them.

 

[thereyougo!]

It all depends on how much latitude you have with your camera. I have pushed shadows to +100% without any cartoon effects. I try not to take things to those extremes if I can, and I have reduced clarity use to under 20 where possible. I don't believe there are any hard and fast rules, but you have to decide for yourself whether you want something realistic or something painterly. After that, it's down to taste. I haven't used HDR in years now, and am not remotely tempted to. My 645Z gives me all I need in one shot in nearly all circumstances.

 

[Braineack]

I'll do whatever it takes, so long as they dont end up looking cartoony-HDR.

The first picture in this thread IS HDR.

The cartoony ones are not.

 

[sm4him]

Well, I know my limit is nowhere even CLOSE to +/-100 for pretty much ANY adjustment slider. I am conservative in pretty much all things, and that includes my photo processing.
Typically, I don't boost anything more than maybe +/-15, maybe 20 (with the exception of contrast).
I have never adjusted the highlights or shadows by more +/-50, and can't really even remember ever going that high/low. I figure if it hasn't improved by that time, I just need to bin the thing and try again.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I'll do whatever it takes, so long as they dont end up looking cartoony-HDR.

The first picture in this thread IS HDR.

The cartoony ones are not.

your point? I never said I was against HDR, just that I hate the way overdone stuff. A lot of my landscape photos are HDR in a way. Not tone mapped, but exposure blended for a similar purpose

 

[407370]

Before I start to process a pic I have a target.

Sometimes that target takes a crop and that's it (have a look at my sunrise / sunset pics) and sometimes it takes it all the way to surrealistic caricatures of the original pic (see this thread second post)

or

load the pic as a texture in a 3D animation package:

Depends on the pic.

My only limit for processing a pic is usually time.

 

[KenC]

I don't make big adjustments to "highlights" or "shadows" sliders, in fact I rarely touch them. I use overall exposure up or down as much as a stop, usually much less, and then use the curve. Nothing else give you exact control over what happens in each part of the tone curve. As for clarity, that always seemed like a gimmick to me and I don't like using it because I'm not sure how it affects other settings.

 

[jsecordphoto]

I don't make big adjustments to "highlights" or "shadows" sliders, in fact I rarely touch them. I use overall exposure up or down as much as a stop, usually much less, and then use the curve. Nothing else give you exact control over what happens in each part of the tone curve. As for clarity, that always seemed like a gimmick to me and I don't like using it because I'm not sure how it affects other settings.

I love this logic...you don't understand it- must be a gimmick!

 

[KenC]

I don't make big adjustments to "highlights" or "shadows" sliders, in fact I rarely touch them. I use overall exposure up or down as much as a stop, usually much less, and then use the curve. Nothing else give you exact control over what happens in each part of the tone curve. As for clarity, that always seemed like a gimmick to me and I don't like using it because I'm not sure how it affects other settings.

I love this logic...you don't understand it- must be a gimmick!

I wasn't clear. The "gimmick" part, which I admit probably is undeserved, comes from seeing people abuse it. I don't use it because I just don't like the results I've gotten from experimenting with it. I didn't mean to imply that others don't find good use for it.

 

[Braineack]

if you hold ALT while sliding you can see the fine detail that the clarity slider is bringing out.