Crop Conundrum

[purplehaze]

Hi all,

I grabbed this shot the other day in the last few seconds before the sun sank out of reach, and had no time to get the plant higher up where I might have avoided catching the window frame. Now I find I like the idea of the window frame and crank being in the image for the sense of place that it conveys... I would like for the image to be about what it was, a moment of time (dying of the afternoon light), rather than just another image of a cactus flower (got tons of those), but am not sure this is working... Should I go for the 16 x 9 crop, eliminate what is left of the window frame, and substitute some of that nice impressionist blue and orange background with Content Aware?

Other than that, my intent is for the image be more low key than bright (am liking the blue/gray tones with the pink). Any suggestions for reinforcing that mood welcome.

[IzzieK]

Wow! beautiful Janis...just clone out the black thingie at the bottom left. Or to make it more even BG, clone out the black thingie and the window.

[Shadowman]

I like it as it is. Not much chance of making this low key without decreasing exposure in ACR or changing shadows/highlights.

[Geoff F]

For me, Janis, if you crop you are going to become too tight, and need a different size image ratio.

So I suspect your only other option is to clone. Or maybe a slight crop and clone.

[Downrigger]

I see why you like it - it is beautiful and your treatment of the light and tones is largely why, to my eye.
One idea for a crop you might fool with is to come in from both the bottom and the left sufficiently to render it a 5x7. Some of the base of the blossom is lost but the important, lovely part is more emphasized, and without the problematic window sill.

[purplehaze]

Thanks all. It looks like opinions are weighing on the side of cropping and cloning, so I will give that a try when I have got a little deeper into my Photoshop training than I am now. Cloning is not one of Aperture's strengths imho.

[jimalexander]

I'm going to go out on a limb and try my hand at suggestions - you're free to laugh and critique me for it

The flower is great- good scene and capture. The handle doesn't bother me much at all. However, if you are better in photoshop than I am (and THAT'S low hanging fruit), could you take a picture of your background with the flower removed (without the handle and frame), maybe at the same time tomorrow, and replace the background from your image?

[Saorsa]

I didn't like th e odd blur at the bottom so went for a tight crop.

Then, I decided to try to make it Low Key as you said. All I did was reduce the Gamma using the light adjustment in FastStone. I like the way it pulls the texture of the petals from the image.



Then, I thought, it's nice and white. Lets see what high key looks like. So, I increased the gamma. It looked a little flat so I kicked up the saturation and that pulled a teenie bit of shading out of all that white.



I tend to crop freehand to the way the image guides me. Of course, if I am posting it in my blog or something I try to go for a consistent size for layout purposes.

[purplehaze]

Jim,

Am at ground zero as far as PS is concerned, so I am hardly in a position to laugh at your suggestion. What was funny was me trying to select the offending portions of the image with the various selection tools when I don't have the first idea of how they work. (I did learn a few things while trying, though; enough to tell me that I really need to start at square one with my lynda.com tutorials).

But I could trying shooting the whole image again, in similar light conditions, and with the plant sitting higher... I do like the main portion of the background.

[purplehaze]

Brian,

Thanks for your edits! The low key definitely appeals to me and I may have to experiment some more in that direction. I don't know what "gamma" means, let alone how to manipulate it. Or maybe I am already manipulating gamma without knowing it. What is gamma? (A rhetorical question; you don't have to answer if you're not inclined. It's in my nature to inform myself eventually. )

[Saorsa]

Here is more than you ever needed to know. from Wiki

In simple terms it is a non-linear luminance correction which isn't brightness or EV. As you can see from the examples, going low key did not make the dark muddy and high key didn't blow the highlights.

[purplehaze]

Here is more than you ever needed to know. from Wiki

Gak. I was lost at "tristimulus values". You gave me an idea, though. I went back and looked at the whole set of exposures I had made and I am thinking this is the one I was thinking of when I processed the other, which was better framed. I still have to get rid of the window frame, but curious to know what you all think of this version (best viewed on black).

[Saorsa]

I like that version too. Each is a bit different in it's own way. One reason for that is the composition of the image with the green catching your eye top left the curving arc of the petal bases leading to the pistil/stamen area which opens out when seen with the upward curving petals. The very linear OOF part at the bottom bothers me personally because of the dissonance with all the curving components. Others may see it differently.

I think we are mentally stuck with paper and screen sizes and aspect ratios. Most of our images are now projected one way or another. We can't control the screen on which people will see out image projected. I've decided that I will crop to suit the image and then let the final display do what it will.

[Downrigger]

That's sort of what I was thinking of for a crop, earlier and I think it's fine. Clone-out of the stuff at the bottom should be easy now. Maybe tones up just a bit, too. Still lovely.

[IzzieK]

Brian...that was a good conversion! I have always wanted to learn that. In fact, it is one of my learning wish for this year that I listed in my stick-ons. Thanks for the reminder.

[Wavelength]

Very nice

[purplehaze]

Nandakumar: Thanks.

Mark: When you say "tones up", do you mean lift all tones (keeping the brightest highlights in check)? Mid-tones only?

Brian/Isabel: I have read the Wikipedia article, and understand the principle of gamma correction so far as it relates to various devices, but am still not sure what you mean by "reduce" or "increase" gamma in photo processing. I have I think replicated Brian's results by pulling down and lifting the (gamma corrected) curve on the luminance channel in Aperture 3 (as opposed to the RGB channel) and just wanted to check to see if that is what you meant.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. I have that much more motivation to get up to speed in Photoshop.

[Saorsa]

Yes, up and down are changes in luminance. Down makes it darker, up makes it lighter.