Bird on a Wire

[FrankMi]

This is a vertical panorama that I originally posted over a year ago. I went back to it to see if it could be improved as (hopefully) I have learned a bit more about post processing in the meantime.

For this version I worked with Local Contrast Enhancement on the Mesa Arch and added a Scott Kelby 'dreamy' effect. I think the Kelby dreamy technique works a lot better on foliage than it does on hard surfaces but learning that is one of the benefits of trying to get answers to the 'what if' questions.

C&C anyone?



By way of orientation, the Mesa Arch is in Canyonlands National Park, near Moab, Utah.

This is one way to see out and under the arch:



When you do, this is the view:



So, being as this arch is about 2,000 feet out over the valley below, why would someone risk their life to walk on it?

[Shadowman]

Very nice sense of scale. Nice image.

[chauncey]

One could work that location to death and still not get it all...great shots.

[Bobobird]

Very nice images. I like how the orange shows so well.

What is the "dreamy effect" and where did you apply it?

[FrankMi]

Thank you John, Chauncey, and Bobo. It was an interesting but at the same time a bit scary place to capture.

What is the "dreamy effect" and where did you apply it?

In one of his training videos, Scott Kelby applies what he calls a 'dreamy effect' to his travel photos. The goal is to have a softness to the scene without losing any detail. I have noticed that it works much better with foliage than with hard surfaces as I have in this scene.

Here is how Scott applies the technique in Photoshop:

1. Duplicate the layer

2. Apply a Gaussian Blur of 30 (yes, 30) pixels.

3a. Set the Layer Opacity to 30%.

- OR -

3b. Set the layer Blend Mode to Soft Light and set the Layer Opacity to 50%.

4. Merge the layers with Stamp Visible (Shift+ALT+CTL+E).

If you don't want the entire image treated this way, then create a selection (or use a soft brush) and apply a Layer Mask to paint just the areas you want affected with the effect.

The effect should be subtle but almost unnoticeably pleasing.

[Brev00]

I would like to see if you could drop the brightness of the sky a little. Maybe a little more blue and less white would emerge offering a nice interplay with the color of the arch. The contrast seems a little harsh to me but that was probably the way it was at the time.

[deetheturk]

Nice captures Frank,maybe you should rename this to 'MAD' bird on a wire

[FrankMi]

I would like to see if you could drop the brightness of the sky a little. Maybe a little more blue and less white would emerge offering a nice interplay with the color of the arch. The contrast seems a little harsh to me but that was probably the way it was at the time.

Hi Larry and thank you for your thoughts! Yes, the sky could be darkened a bit but if you notice the sky in the other images which are SOOC, you will see that it is fairly close to what it was that day. That's not to say that it might not look better with a darker sky - I don't think that would be a problem at all.

As for the contrast in the arch, I did apply some Local Contrast Enhancement and perhaps I went a tad to far. Knowing where to stop isn't always a science but rather more of a personal feeling. Again if you check the other images you'll see that the contrast in the arch was a bit flatter in the original. Only the first image was post processed.

[FrankMi]

Nice captures Frank,maybe you should rename this to 'MAD' bird on a wire

LOL! Some mother's children could have more sense!

[Brev00]

Hi Larry and thank you for your thoughts! Yes, the sky could be darkened a bit but if you notice the sky in the other images which are SOOC, you will see that it is fairly close to what it was that day. That's not to say that it might not look better with a darker sky - I don't think that would be a problem at all.

As for the contrast in the arch, I did apply some Local Contrast Enhancement and perhaps I went a tad to far. Knowing where to stop isn't always a science but rather more of a personal feeling. Again if you check the other images you'll see that the contrast in the arch was a bit flatter in the original. Only the first image was post processed.

I like the color and feel of the near arch. I think you did a great job with that. It is more the sunlit lower portion that looks a bit 'off'. Maybe less contrast there so it goes more into the background. And, I think you know what I am saying about the sky but, just to be clear, I don't mean dark or even midtone. More like lowering it from 230-250 to 210-230--just enough to hold more blue and less white. It could just be considered part of darkening the edges to enhance the viewing experience. Of course, if that feels less real to you, then just toss my two cents in a nearby fountain.

[FrankMi]

I like the color and feel of the near arch. I think you did a great job with that. It is more the sunlit lower portion that looks a bit 'off'. Maybe less contrast there so it goes more into the background. And, I think you know what I am saying about the sky but, just to be clear, I don't mean dark or even midtone. More like lowering it from 230-250 to 210-230--just enough to hold more blue and less white. It could just be considered part of darkening the edges to enhance the viewing experience. Of course, if that feels less real to you, then just toss my two cents in a nearby fountain.

I gave it a try, Larry. The sky now has just a bit more punch and the contrast has been reduced in the back wall. I like the sky a bit better but I'm not sure that it changed the back wall enough to be significant.



Your thoughts?

[Brev00]

Oh, I really like how you adjusted the sky. That is right on the money, in terms of what I was thinking. And, the back wall looks better, too, in my opinion. I wasn't looking for much, just having it be less distracting--and I think you have done that very well, too. Subtle work well done!