Before-and-after photo of stream w/post-processing

[plugsnpixels]

Here is a hand-held snapshot of a manicured stream I shot with a Nikon L810 while my daughter was taking photo class assignment photos with our Canon DSLR (working on motion blur).

Shown is the unretouched original and the slightly cropped and post-processed version treated with Topaz Adjust, Clean and Simplify (layers reduced in opacity and blended together).

[Shadowman]

Although small, looks like an ideal scene. I like the look of the first image.

[plugsnpixels]

It's a "city" stream on a former college campus. Photo was taken from a walkway bridge.

I personally think the unretouched photo is a bit bland, so here is a compromise between unretouched and artsy (just a touch of Topaz Clarity).

[JasonS]

I have to agree with Shadow. Before clicking on the thumbnails, the second looked more attractive to me. But once I looked closer, the second looks more like an artist's rendition, a bit fake. That's why I like the first one.

[ajohnw]

The 2nd one looks way too fake to me. I don't think the images are large enough for the scene either which would make the processed on look even worse. To me the processed one looks like a poor go at an HDR look - must admit I am sick to death of seeing shots go that way.

Some relatively simple adjustments - including correcting the colour balance. A bit over done too.



It hasn't stretched well but I feel this one needs a bigger image.

John
-

[Brev00]

I, too, like the original the most. I prefer the balance of dark and bright that you have with the shadowy falls and the bright section at the top. If you cropped off the top, then brightening the falls would make more sense to me. I use the Topaz bundle, too, and sometimes find that even a basic preset makes a lot of changes. So, I will bring some of the sliders closer to zero or just start moving one or two sliders with no preset. On the other hand, going all out can work well if one is going for a particular look.

[chauncey]

Sorry...I'm not a fan of plug-ins and presets, preferring instead to develop one's own vision.

[Manfred M]

I would turn things around and ask you which one you like best, and why.

After all, it's your work and your role to interpret the scene in whatever manner you want.

I do use plug-ins (in my case mostly the Nik collection), but never use it without other edits or tweaking of the internal parameter settings as the defaults never seem to give me exactly what I want. I have a standard workflow that I apply during various stages of editing and will only use a plug-in when I am after a specific effect that I can't get in my standard workflow.

[ajohnw]

Sorry...I'm not a fan of plug-ins and presets, preferring instead to develop one's own vision.

I don't see any problem using them really but suspect it's better to get to a decent "normal" result before applying them. Suspect as I generally don't use any at all. It could be that the availability of packages like the one used encourage people to go ahead without getting a handle on the usual basic adjustments that get contrast and brightness levels right. As far as "normal" is concerned in that respect tastes vary but there are limits.

Personally I would just darken the over exposed top section at the top more rather than chop it off as I feel the framing of the shot is about right.

John
-

[Brev00]

I am not advising to chop it off, just opining that the original contrast looks fine to me and brightening the falls while still having the bright top looks off. It was a hypothetical--if one were just shooting the falls, then the greater brightness might look fine. I like the composition, too. I have no problem with Chauncey's statement with just the quibble that he moved to the third person at the very end.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mike,

You'll make it easier for all of us if you could also do Part 2 of the attached image routine:

Part 2: How to make an attached thumbnail appear larger and inline

• Click the image to make it bigger
• Right-click on the image and select "Copy Image Location" (in Firefox) or "Copy Shortcut" (in IE)
• Click "Edit Post" and position the cursor where you want the image to appear, then use the "Insert Image" icon and Paste (Ctrl+V) the shortcut into the dialog and click "OK"
• Click "Save Changes" button.
  (if you attached more than one image, repeat steps 1-3 for each to get the bigger images inline)

That's the bit I just did for yours so everyone can get between them easier in the Lyte box and see them bigger in the posts.

Thanks, Dave

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks all for your input! It is much appreciated.

I suppose I should clarify my approach with this particular shot and in general.

I personally like to take my images in an "artistic" direction. To me, an image straight out of the camera is just a starting point, and dare I say, boring. (Side note: I did a lot of photojournalism when I was younger and that is more cut-and-dried. I think I am more of a fine-art person.)

Since discovering plug-ins over 20 years ago I have greatly enjoyed exploring and understanding them. There is the argument you will often read that you can do everything plug-ins do manually in your image editor, and in some cases this is true, but by no means all. And even if you could, plug-ins help you work faster and to be more flexible in your experimentation. To do things the manual way requires time+chops, and many don't have the luxury of both ;-).

As for my processed stream photo, first, of course we are working with a web-sized image. This forum is more generous than others in terms of attachment size so from now on I will take advantage of that and use Dave's tips.

Second, although the "after" version appears "overdone", I like the whimsical effect I achieved, sort of like a turn-of-the-century travel book or illustrated antique children's novel (and you'll notice I toned it way down in my subsequent post). John's example above is quite nice and well suited to the scene, but I always want to take it further (see for example my Los Angeles city scene, which I took from "snapshot" to apocalypse, in issue #20's tutorial here).

This is a fun discussion over a photo I only spent a minute taking ;-). I look forward to putting up some more we can talk about.

[LocalHero1953]

While I don't agree with Chauncey entirely (while you are inexperienced in pp, presets can help you work out how to achieve certain effects), I do believe that there is no point in trying to use pp to rescue an image that has fundamental problems. Although I can see what the OP wanted, IMHO this image is not worth working on because the lighting is fundamentally wrong to start with - I think the light should be on the falls, whereas in the OOC image they appear to be in shadow. I have many images that I think OUGHT to look good, but have a fundamental flaw of lighting or composition: I abandon or even delete them (usually in irritation or fury!). Unless the moment is unrepeatable, I think you are better working out how to get a better initial image rather than retrieve an inadequate image. With landscapes, in particular, you can usually wait for the right season, the right time of day and the right weather. THEN you can use pp to improve your OOC image. YMMV.

[RobertArdill]

Hi Mike,
Actually I'm with you on this image. Even though the light wasn't the best when you took the shot, as Paul says (but getting good light under trees isn't going to be easy!) I do think your the effect you've achieved with your Topaz version is really good. I love all the swirly textures! It's a question of taste, for sure, but I do like it at lot.

I know you wanted a relatively flat look, but just out of interest I desaturated your processed image to see what the tonal balance is:



IMO, for what it's worth, the image would benefit by having a stronger focus on the waterfall. So I tweaked the black and white balance a bit (and this is on a copy of your image, so not the best source material!) to get something like this:



The water in the foreground is too light, for sure, so it needs to be masked out.

And then just for the fun of it (sometimes this gives quite nice results) I changed the Black and White layer mode to Luminosity (in Photoshop). Your original is on top and the one with the additional B/W layer below it:



Well ... down to a question of taste, and I'm not sure which I prefer ... perhaps something in between

Robert

[plugsnpixels]

Paul, yes, the lighting was bad (we hit this spot as the sun was setting and this was taken toward the west). If there were no buildings in the background, it would be less of a problem. Cropping down from the top doesn't work because then you lose the top of the little tree and are left with stubs.

Robert, nice results!

No one's mentioned the bubbly suds in the stream (lower right). I find that the most disturbing ;-).

[ajohnw]

There isn't much of a problem altering the lighting on shots like this but there are limitations doing it from a jpg. It's just a case of using brightening brushes / contrast brushes in the right place. Adding a weak vignette also helps.



Darken the surrounding rocks a bit like this will loose some of the effect.

John
-

[plugsnpixels]

Well ... down to a question of taste, and I'm not sure which I prefer ... perhaps something in between

Robert

That's exactly the situation with photography and art (and music, movies, food, etc.) – they're extremely subjective. I didn't even like my own original while some of you did, and the opposite was the case with the pp version.