Your Say

[K9Kirk]

I would like some honest critiquing of this picture. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements '18 and I'm pretty much a beginner with it and striving to get better. I'm just using the "Quick" mode with it, the professional mode is a little hard to understand right now but it appears there are plenty of adjustments with "Quick" for what I'm trying to achieve. Also, would anyone suggest using a better lens for landscapes than the one used? I'm not exactly thrilled with this "kit" lens although the experts say it's a "decent" lens. The first pic is the original and the 2nd pic the post edit, thanks for any and all feedback!
Before

After

I was trying to make it look a little warmer with the red but it appears I may've went a little too heavy with it or is it OK?

 

[Original katomi]

Like most things photography is a mater of taste and personal preference.
T4 for me the second pic you have over done the blue effect in the sky but I do like the lightening and warming effect in the buildings.
When I did a shoot of the cross at Chichester there were something like 5 different light sources I shot 15 shots 3 for each bracketing the shots these I later merged with layers in ps9 you could use the selection tools in ps18 to just select the blue area and adjust,
To save typing most of us know ps is photoshop and lr is lightroom case upper/lower does not matter
Edit. Meant to add. Pse is of course photoshop elements

 

[Flying Panda]

Being a wildlife photographer I may not be quite as qualified as a landscape photographer to give your image a thorough critique. But the most noticable feature of the edited image above is the noise. High ISO photos will do this. I'm not familiar with Adobe's Elements software. Do they have a noise reduction feature? I use Lightroom for most of my editing but I don't consider Lightroom's noise reduction features to be totally satisfying for my taste. I have a separate noise reduction software but even then, each individual image is unique in itself. In other words, using noise reduction can be very counter-productive in the sense that in some images, sharpness is compromised by reducing noise too much. And always try to minimize noise first before sharpening an image or you will end up sharpening the noise if you don't. However, in your image above, the sky has the right color, lighting and exposure but it needs to be smoothed somewhat and noise reduction software can accomplish this. I hope this small tip helps! Keep up the good work!

 

[Jeff1546 46]

With Photoshop you never stop learning..............

 

[K9Kirk]

Like most things photography is a mater of taste and personal preference.
T4 for me the second pic you have over done the blue effect in the sky but I do like the lightening and warming effect in the buildings.
When I did a shoot of the cross at Chichester there were something like 5 different light sources I shot 15 shots 3 for each bracketing the shots these I later merged with layers in ps9 you could use the selection tools in ps18 to just select the blue area and adjust,
To save typing most of us know ps is photoshop and lr is lightroom case upper/lower does not matter
Edit. Meant to add. Pse is of course photoshop elements

Being a wildlife photographer I may not be quite as qualified as a landscape photographer to give your image a thorough critique. But the most noticable feature of the edited image above is the noise. High ISO photos will do this. I'm not familiar with Adobe's Elements software. Do they have a noise reduction feature? I use Lightroom for most of my editing but I don't consider Lightroom's noise reduction features to be totally satisfying for my taste. I have a separate noise reduction software but even then, each individual image is unique in itself. In other words, using noise reduction can be very counter-productive in the sense that in some images, sharpness is compromised by reducing noise too much. And always try to minimize noise first before sharpening an image or you will end up sharpening the noise if you don't. However, in your image above, the sky has the right color, lighting and exposure but it needs to be smoothed somewhat and noise reduction software can accomplish this. I hope this small tip helps! Keep up the good work!

With Photoshop you never stop learning..............

Thanks guys! I'll try and keep my tweaking down to a minimum, keep an eye on the noise (I wasn't looking for it so I didn't even notice it, good eye!) and compare pics a little better. It's easy to go overboard with the settings when they produce brilliant colors that look good … too good, lol!

 

[weepete]

What lens are you currently using?

With regards to the edit, it's way overcooked. The sky is unnaturally blue and you've introduced a blown out setion on the left, you've got luminance noise in the sky and quite a large sensor spot that should be healed/cloned. The horizon is a few degrees off level, the trees have a lean that could be corrected. There's quite a bit of both colour and luminance noise in the shadows. The red triangular roofs now look so bright that they seem to be a light source, and the split toning has made the shadows very blue. There's a quite a bit of CA on the trees that could be fixed and the bushes dissaper into black. Compositionally you have leading lines in the pathway and the wall on the right that could have been used to lead the eye into the scene, if you'd have placed the line where the wall meets the path in the bottom right corner.

Ultimatley I think this was the wrong time of day for this shot, as while the lights are properly exposed everything else is under. One of the major issues I think here is lack of any foreground light. If you had a bit of golden light spilling on to the walkway and the sky was naturally a bit brighter I think this could work.

 

[K9Kirk]

What lens are you currently using?

With regards to the edit, it's way overcooked. The sky is unnaturally blue and you've introduced a blown out setion on the left, you've got luminance noise in the sky and quite a large sensor spot that should be healed/cloned. The horizon is a few degrees off level, the trees have a lean that could be corrected. There's quite a bit of both colour and luminance noise in the shadows. The red triangular roofs now look so bright that they seem to be a light source, and the split toning has made the shadows very blue. There's a quite a bit of CA on the trees that could be fixed and the bushes dissaper into black. Compositionally you have leading lines in the pathway and the wall on the right that could have been used to lead the eye into the scene, if you'd have placed the line where the wall meets the path in the bottom right corner.

Ultimatley I think this was the wrong time of day for this shot, as while the lights are properly exposed everything else is under. One of the major issues I think here is lack of any foreground light. If you had a bit of golden light spilling on to the walkway and the sky was naturally a bit brighter I think this could work.

Thanks for the pointers, weepete! Geez, It just hit me looking back at that PS pic how heavy handed I was, lol! I did what a lot of people do that I don't like. I made some adjustments on the things you mentioned and I although I might not have "nailed it" I think the picture looks better, "more natural", thanks to you pointing out what needed correcting.
As is on my own, I'm finding that although one control may increase or decrease something in one area it also does the same in another that you want to remain untouched so you have to choose the right controls, they can give similar but different results. I'm playing around and learning the hard way ("school of hard knocks") but I'm starting to understand better. I could watch some good instructional video's perhaps to speed things up a bit, maybe I'll try that.

I have to say though, with all due respect, that pic was just a last second quick, hand held "snap-shot" type pic that I took just minutes before it became dark, I wasn't trying to produce a real good picture. I just picked it as my PS guinea pig to work with, so to speak. I'll take the time to plan everything out for a nicely composed pic in the near future and hopefully I'll get a grade closer to an A than an F, lol! I appreciate your time and help, I think you got me going in the right direction. Here's the modified pic, I still feel something is a bit off. Edit: It's the exposer, I decreased it to tone down that blown out light, etc, and everything seems a little on the dark side now but you're right, wrong time of day for a good pic to begin with. (give me an honest grade and more critique if need be)

 

[Designer]

I could watch some good instructional video's perhaps to speed things up a bit, maybe I'll try that.

I have to say though, with all due respect, that pic was just a last second quick, hand held "snap-shot" type pic that I took just minutes before it became dark, I wasn't trying to produce a real good picture. I just picked it as my PS guinea pig to work with, so to speak. I'll take the time to plan everything out for a nicely composed pic in the near future and hopefully I'll get a grade closer to an A than an F, lol! I appreciate your time and help, I think you got me going in the right direction. Here's the modified pic, I still feel something is a bit off. Edit: It's the exposer, I decreased it to tone down that blown out light, etc, and everything seems a little on the dark side now but you're right, wrong time of day for a good pic to begin with. (give me an honest grade and more critique if need be)

Another approach is to allow editing so someone on here can give it a go.

One possibility is to choose a different crop to emphasize the lighted area. Let me show you.

Also, I think your camera may have focused on something in the middle foreground, such as the chairs, for instance.

 

[K9Kirk]

I could watch some good instructional video's perhaps to speed things up a bit, maybe I'll try that.

I have to say though, with all due respect, that pic was just a last second quick, hand held "snap-shot" type pic that I took just minutes before it became dark, I wasn't trying to produce a real good picture. I just picked it as my PS guinea pig to work with, so to speak. I'll take the time to plan everything out for a nicely composed pic in the near future and hopefully I'll get a grade closer to an A than an F, lol! I appreciate your time and help, I think you got me going in the right direction. Here's the modified pic, I still feel something is a bit off. Edit: It's the exposer, I decreased it to tone down that blown out light, etc, and everything seems a little on the dark side now but you're right, wrong time of day for a good pic to begin with. (give me an honest grade and more critique if need be)

Another approach is to allow editing so someone on here can give it a go.

One possibility is to choose a different crop to emphasize the lighted area. Let me show you.

Also, I think your camera may have focused on something in the middle foreground, such as the chairs, for instance.

That's fine so long as they tell me what they did in editing to achieve the effects. I'm new at this and I can't always guess what people did by looking at it like some people can that are familiar with PS. If you want to edit the pic to emphasize the lighted area go ahead and give it a go, I changed my setting to "Ok to edit." I must say though that I did want the closest palm tree that's out to the side to be in the picture or else I would've cropped in and centered the area where the people are to emphasize that lit area more. Maybe you have something else in mind? If so, teach this old dog a new trick! lol!

 

[Designer]

Might be nothing new or complicated, but here is an alternate version:

I checked the WB and exposure, which were not changed from your edit.

Then cropped it to 4x5, brought up the shadows a bit, and sharpened it to help counteract the missed (?) focus.

I don't know how it is improved by including the foreground tree.

Your shot has some fairly good asymmetrical balance, leading lines, and human interest.

 

[Flying Panda]

@K9Kirk - Check out the noise in this version of your original.

 

[K9Kirk]

@K9Kirk - Check out the noise in this version of your original.

View attachment 178091

ACK!! Yes, it had much noise in it. I tried to smooth it out in my last pic (corrected pic). I'm not sure if I accomplished my goal. I think you have a better eye for this or are you simply zooming in better? (deez old eyes!)

 

[weepete]

Thanks for the pointers, weepete! Geez, It just hit me looking back at that PS pic how heavy handed I was, lol! I did what a lot of people do that I don't like. I made some adjustments on the things you mentioned and I although I might not have "nailed it" I think the picture looks better, "more natural", thanks to you pointing out what needed correcting.
As is on my own, I'm finding that although one control may increase or decrease something in one area it also does the same in another that you want to remain untouched so you have to choose the right controls, they can give similar but different results. I'm playing around and learning the hard way ("school of hard knocks") but I'm starting to understand better. I could watch some good instructional video's perhaps to speed things up a bit, maybe I'll try that.

I have to say though, with all due respect, that pic was just a last second quick, hand held "snap-shot" type pic that I took just minutes before it became dark, I wasn't trying to produce a real good picture. I just picked it as my PS guinea pig to work with, so to speak. I'll take the time to plan everything out for a nicely composed pic in the near future and hopefully I'll get a grade closer to an A than an F, lol! I appreciate your time and help, I think you got me going in the right direction. Here's the modified pic, I still feel something is a bit off. Edit: It's the exposer, I decreased it to tone down that blown out light, etc, and everything seems a little on the dark side now but you're right, wrong time of day for a good pic to begin with. (give me an honest grade and more critique if need be)
View attachment 178058

That edit is significantly better, much more natural. You've kept the warm tone well in that one.

The difficulty in a lot of editing is as you say, the law of unintended concequences. One of the drawbacks of altering colour was well explained to me by @Tim Tucker 2 a wee while ago that by adding in exta saturation on luminance you can destroy subtle mid tones in a shot. I think this is one major reason a lot of people will describe heavily edited photo's as looking "like a painting". The photographer has attempted to make colours pop, and by doing so they've lost the natural tones in the image and inadvertantly killed the realism. Subtlty I think is key and you really don't need to move sliders a lot to make the difference. I could also show you some of mine when I first started that I fixed with electic blue skies and nuclear green grass! Most of us have been there and done it too at somepoint

 

[K9Kirk]

Thanks for the pointers, weepete! Geez, It just hit me looking back at that PS pic how heavy handed I was, lol! I did what a lot of people do that I don't like. I made some adjustments on the things you mentioned and I although I might not have "nailed it" I think the picture looks better, "more natural", thanks to you pointing out what needed correcting.
As is on my own, I'm finding that although one control may increase or decrease something in one area it also does the same in another that you want to remain untouched so you have to choose the right controls, they can give similar but different results. I'm playing around and learning the hard way ("school of hard knocks") but I'm starting to understand better. I could watch some good instructional video's perhaps to speed things up a bit, maybe I'll try that.

I have to say though, with all due respect, that pic was just a last second quick, hand held "snap-shot" type pic that I took just minutes before it became dark, I wasn't trying to produce a real good picture. I just picked it as my PS guinea pig to work with, so to speak. I'll take the time to plan everything out for a nicely composed pic in the near future and hopefully I'll get a grade closer to an A than an F, lol! I appreciate your time and help, I think you got me going in the right direction. Here's the modified pic, I still feel something is a bit off. Edit: It's the exposer, I decreased it to tone down that blown out light, etc, and everything seems a little on the dark side now but you're right, wrong time of day for a good pic to begin with. (give me an honest grade and more critique if need be)
View attachment 178058

That edit is significantly better, much more natural. You've kept the warm tone well in that one.

The difficulty in a lot of editing is as you say, the law of unintended concequences. One of the drawbacks of altering colour was well explained to me by @Tim Tucker 2 a wee while ago that by adding in exta saturation on luminance you can destroy subtle mid tones in a shot. I think this is one major reason a lot of people will describe heavily edited photo's as looking "like a painting". The photographer has attempted to make colours pop, and by doing so they've lost the natural tones in the image and inadvertantly killed the realism. Subtlty I think is key and you really don't need to move sliders a lot to make the difference. I could also show you some of mine when I first started that I fixed with electic blue skies and nuclear green grass! Most of us have been there and done it too at somepoint

Thanks for the kind compliments! It's comforting to know you understand, you would make a great teacher. Now for those nuclear green grass pics to lighten up this whole conversation, heh!