Learning Landscapes - A Snowy Tree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christina S

Thank you to all for your comments and suggestions. Truly appreciated.

John (Shadowman) so these are still-lifes, not landscapes? (:

---

Christina,

Natural Still-Lifes. I was just looking for another term as they are obviously nature and isolated views of a landscape. The background in the second image would be considered a landscape, but the foreground subject sort of overshadows the landscape aspect.

Nice images,you are getting better at shooting landscapes Christina:)

Thank you Donald and Binnur. I'm certainly trying so it is very encouraging to hear.

John... Thank you for answering my question. Truly appreciated.

Manfred... Thanks a million! Your analysis and feedback is awesome, and very helpful.. Ten clicks on the help button if it were possible... Just so you know.

Following are my post processing edits to the best of my ability.

I dodged the tree trunk to bring out more detail in the tree trunk, and applied curves to decrease the highlights in the snow on the bench trying to bring out more detail.


Straightened the fir tree just a little because straightening the tree crops the photo, and cropped to eliminate some of the foreground.

Applied a white vignette to both photos.

Removed the house with the healing and cloning tools.. and this is the hardest thing to do well. ie; not a worry at small size but far from perfect at full size and something that I would prefer to avoid having to do by framing the picture better in the first place, as well as the center placement as I left no room for cropping in this image.

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/...e.jpg~original

Here is a version where the fir tree is more to the left of the tree but it doesn't appeal to me as much as the one above, plus I had to heal/clone out a man walking his dog on the right hand side, again too hard to do well.

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/...g.jpg~original


And the tree shot

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/...t.jpg~original

A big thank you to all!

PS Mark I tried to bring out the snow with the curves tool but I just couldn't do it with any finesse.

Well done, Christina. I'm really surprised that you have so quickly learned how to use the Move tool. I'm not at all surprised that you weren't able to bring out any more detail in the snow. That's because the lighting is so very diffuse.

Thank you Mike. Actually this is my 2nd try at moving something. A little while ago Dan suggested that I crop a pelican image and move the bokeh (I had the same initial reaction as when you suggested I move a bird) Anyhow I managed to figure that out (learning to use layers) and remembered that when I got to this shot.

Good to know about diffuse lighting. Thank you for sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Well done, Christina. I'm really surprised that you have so quickly learned how to use the Move tool. I'm not at all surprised that you weren't able to bring out any more detail in the snow. That's because the lighting is so very diffuse.

---

i just brought up the snow but I don't think it does anything for the shot. It's pretty perfect as it is. The trouble with bringing it up noticeably is that it must introduce some grey to provide the detail.

In this case you could apply a 2nd curve something along the lines of this as the flattened contrast area doesn't detract from the shot. As you can see it also changes other parts of the scene as well.

http://i58.tinypic.com/mazbrd.jpg

If the slope of the top part is reduced then less grey so it's a compromise situation, some is needed to see the detail.

This is what it did to the shot

http://i61.tinypic.com/1r69ev.jpg

The problem is that things can't be whiter than white. A less severe curve would produce less greyness in the detail. The other way if your package allows it is to brush a curve onto the area you want to add detail too. There are also layer techniques but all will have the same problem.

Frankly though I really do feel the shot is fine as it is. The tinge of colour in the tree blends in with the rest of the shot AND the horizon is balanced at each edge - often a good idea.

John
-

Hi John,

Thank you for sharing. Truly appreciated and very helpful for me to know for future.

You brought out all the details in the snow including the footprints... Therefore I prefer the white with no footprints... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

i just brought up the snow but I don't think it does anything for the shot. It's pretty perfect as it is. The trouble with bringing it up noticeably is that it must introduce some grey to provide the detail.

In this case you could apply a 2nd curve something along the lines of this as the flattened contrast area doesn't detract from the shot. As you can see it also changes other parts of the scene as well.

http://i58.tinypic.com/mazbrd.jpg

If the slope of the top part is reduced then less grey so it's a compromise situation, some is needed to see the detail.

This is what it did to the shot

http://i61.tinypic.com/1r69ev.jpg

The problem is that things can't be whiter than white. A less severe curve would produce less greyness in the detail. The other way if your package allows it is to brush a curve onto the area you want to add detail too. There are also layer techniques but all will have the same problem.

Frankly though I really do feel the shot is fine as it is. The tinge of colour in the tree blends in with the rest of the shot AND the horizon is balanced at each edge - often a good idea.

John
-

---

Very nice, Christina,

I love reading your narrative and questions and rationale for shooting as you did. The commentary from everyone is informative and reasoned.

As Donald said, your images have improved exponentially with your studies.

Marie

John's treatment is a perfect example of why I would want post-processing software that allows you to apply a curve to a selected area of the image. His curve improves certain areas of the image and worsens other areas, and understandably so. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't allow the use of selectively applying a curve.

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and for your encouragement. I feel very fortunate to be able to receive such feedback. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marie Hass

Very nice, Christina,

I love reading your narrative and questions and rationale for shooting as you did. The commentary from everyone is informative and reasoned.

As Donald said, your images have improved exponentially with your studies.

Marie

---

I applied a curves adjustment to the snow on the bench, selectively using Photoshop, to bring out more detail just as you advised. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

John's treatment is a perfect example of why I would want post-processing software that allows you to apply a curve to a selected area of the image. His curve improves certain areas of the image and worsens other areas, and understandably so. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't allow the use of selectively applying a curve.

---

Christina,

Did you use Photoshop Elements or Photoshop CC?

I have Photoshop Elements but I use Lightroom 5. However, since since I signed up for the cloud package it came with Photoshop CC, so most recently now when I export my jpegs from Lightroom, I apply an unsharp mask using a layer, and I plan to do the same for any curves adjustments as I progress and learn where this type of selective edit will help bring out the best in the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Christina,

Did you use Photoshop Elements or Photoshop CC?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

John's treatment is a perfect example of why I would want post-processing software that allows you to apply a curve to a selected area of the image. His curve improves certain areas of the image and worsens other areas, and understandably so. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't allow the use of selectively applying a curve.

---

There is a way of doing this with layers. If I remember correctly - duplicate layer - desaturate that - invert it and play with transparency. Or add more than one similar layer. The gimp speak layer mode is overlay. There will be adobe tutorials on the web. Some will mention blurring the overlay. If the effect isn't wanted or needs reducing in places it's just a case of painting the right degree of transparency on to the adjustment layer. Other things can be applied to the layer as well such as curves. Sounds complicated but some one who is used to working like this would do it in seconds. The only extra step over a brush is the layer creation - 3 clicks. Some methods advocate playing with brightness and contrast after flattening. :) In general when more is paid for a package it does this all in the background one way or the other but also looses some flexibility.

John
-

Christina -this is where Photoshop comes into its own; using adjustment laers and layer masks to blend the area that requires correction with the one that does not.

1. Duplicate the image (i.e. create new layer that is a duplicate of the original).

2. Make a curves adjustment layer like the one John has done on the new layer. This will affect the whole image.

3. Now take a soft, black brush (start at about 30% opacity) and start painting the areas on the mask where you want the original image to show through.

Thank John and Manfred for the helpful tips and how-tos on using layers. Truly appreciated.

Manfred, yes I've been using layers to sharpen images and I can see how they are very handy for selective edits.

I've murdered you image Chistina working on each layer as they are created.

Duplicate layer mode overlay, call it contrast, desaturate and invert. Adjust opacity to enhance detail as needed. This one is 50% to just bring it up slightly. It would be hard to do this evenly with a brush.

Add a new layer calling it vignette, black, mode soft light. Add a layer mask, white full opacity and select while working on the mask. Select a larger area than the parts that shouldn't be be changed. I used a rectangular select with rounded corners and some fuzz. Fill that with black, full transparency, de select and then use a rather huge gaussian blur to smear it out more. Adding the black will bring the underlying image back to how it was. This is a conventional darkening vignette. I then replaced the layer with it's mask and inverted it and change the layer mode to screen. That gives a white vignette. Looks like this could be tinted if needed or even the whiteness changed.

All GIMP but the point is that each step is made with a fresh layer and the effects can be seen by leaving all visible and just selecting a layer and changing each as desired. Not knowing the layer mode doesn't really matter. Try all until you find the one you want. Vignetting is done like this so that it can have any shape even a free hand selection so there should be an Adobe tutorial about. That will probably just cover the usual vignette but invert and changing it's layer mode should do the same thing.

Make a mistake - just delete the layer and do it again.

Just for fun I added a white bezel edge and a blue black frame plus gradient that bled into the bezel. Also increased contrast of the whole image a little as the above did seem to loose a little or maybe I thought it looked a bit flat.

When adding a frame I selected new layer from visible and added it to that so that it would be possible to just delete that and do the same thing again if needed. Some people always duplicate the original image so that any changes can be removed if needed.

http://i61.tinypic.com/1zdw4kg.jpg

John
-

Hi John,

Actually, I quite like your edit. So much so that I will bookmark this thread and save if for future when I'm ready for and capable of such post processing. I think it is amazing that you could do so much to such a small sized image, when I am struggling to make anything of the humongous raw file.

I understand the process and the concepts, it is just a matter of gaining more experience and know how, so I can accomplish such a fine edit.

Very thoughtful and kind of you. I hope to be able to repay the favour in kind to some other lost soul, one day in the future.

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

I've murdered you image Chistina working on each layer as they are created.

Duplicate layer mode overlay, call it contrast, desaturate and invert. Adjust opacity to enhance detail as needed. This one is 50% to just bring it up slightly. It would be hard to do this evenly with a brush.

Add a new layer calling it vignette, black, mode soft light. Add a layer mask, white full opacity and select while working on the mask. Select a larger area than the parts that shouldn't be be changed. I used a rectangular select with rounded corners and some fuzz. Fill that with black, full transparency, de select and then use a rather huge gaussian blur to smear it out more. Adding the black will bring the underlying image back to how it was. This is a conventional darkening vignette. I then replaced the layer with it's mask and inverted it and change the layer mode to screen. That gives a white vignette. Looks like this could be tinted if needed or even the whiteness changed.

All GIMP but the point is that each step is made with a fresh layer and the effects can be seen by leaving all visible and just selecting a layer and changing each as desired. Not knowing the layer mode doesn't really matter. Try all until you find the one you want. Vignetting is done like this so that it can have any shape even a free hand selection so there should be an Adobe tutorial about. That will probably just cover the usual vignette but invert and changing it's layer mode should do the same thing.

Make a mistake - just delete the layer and do it again.

Just for fun I added a white bezel edge and a blue black frame plus gradient that bled into the bezel. Also increased contrast of the whole image a little as the above did seem to loose a little or maybe I thought it looked a bit flat.

When adding a frame I selected new layer from visible and added it to that so that it would be possible to just delete that and do the same thing again if needed. Some people always duplicate the original image so that any changes can be removed if needed.

http://i61.tinypic.com/1zdw4kg.jpg

John
-

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christina S

Hi John,

Actually, I quite like your edit. So much so that I will bookmark this thread and save if for future when I'm ready for and capable of such post processing. I think it is amazing that you could do so much to such a small sized image, when I am struggling to make anything of the humongous raw file.

I understand the process and the concepts, it is just a matter of gaining more experience and know how, so I can accomplish such a fine edit.

Very thoughtful and kind of you. I hope to be able to repay the favour in kind to some other lost soul, one day in the future.

Thank you!

---

I thought you might like it. When you try it remember to try variations. On the contrast mask for instance try different layer modes without the desaturation and inversion. A white vignette can also be made with a white layer and a transparent cut out blurred in the same way as the usual dark one. R G B channels or luminance can be used to make masks that need little or no local painting.

There is no harm working on jpg's from any source providing they are more or less right. The main thing is no highlight clipping. The amount of shadow recovery available in camera jpg's can be surprising. I always shoot raw plus best jpg. I'm not the only one either. From raw I always save 95% quality in case I want to change them again.

John
-