-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is this overcooked? C+C
- Thread starter Gman58
- Start date
SoCalWill
Veteran Member
Less shadow, more warmth
--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.
--
Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.
Ari Aikomus
Veteran Member
I almost like your original version better, more natural...Gman58 said:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59277237
...But maybe it's just a matter of taste...
I hope you do not mind, here is my version of your photo ... What do you think?
regards,
Ari
--
- Ari Aikomus -
'Why should I feel lonely ? is not our planet in the Milky way?'
Last edited:
Joseph Tainter
Forum Pro
Overall I like it, but is something off with the color of the water on the bottom left? It looks like stagnant water, not running water.
Joe
Joe
SMCTakumar
Forum Enthusiast
In my opinion, and to my taste, yes. I find the DA21L to be saturated enough, sharp enough and contrasty enough to be almost left alone under most light situations. But that's just me.
I posted this same photo on landscape forum and it was unanimous that the original (less cooked) shot was not bright, saturated, and contrasty enough. I've found that that forum is very good, but in general the prominent posters like more contrast and saturation than I'm used to.
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
It's nice when colors pop, but only when they have something to pop against. In this case everything is oversaturated, even the water that you'd expect to be neutral.
Also the things you want to pop are the things you want to be emphasized. In this case I think you want the opposite, the running water should be the center of attention. That suggests that the opposite approach may be optimal, making this a B/W photograph. I'm not terribly good at B/W but I'll try to make a stab at it and post it as a response.
Also the things you want to pop are the things you want to be emphasized. In this case I think you want the opposite, the running water should be the center of attention. That suggests that the opposite approach may be optimal, making this a B/W photograph. I'm not terribly good at B/W but I'll try to make a stab at it and post it as a response.
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
This is taking the blue channel at 100% and losing the red and green channels entirely, followed by the Clarify filter in Paint Shop Pro which emphasizes the contrast between light and dark parts of the picture. You can see that the emphasis is completely different from your original.
Attachments
Imho, yes the image looks overcooked. I like the shot itself but I think the processing is too much (unless you are going for this).
the main reason being that the processing introduced:
1. sharpening artefacts / halos
2. color abberations (if you look at the water that are distinct color blotches that are not there in the original )
these make the processed picture look unnatural (the water in particular), I'm not saying that sharpening should not be added (this is a matter of taste of course) but maybe not as much.
the main reason being that the processing introduced:
1. sharpening artefacts / halos
2. color abberations (if you look at the water that are distinct color blotches that are not there in the original )
these make the processed picture look unnatural (the water in particular), I'm not saying that sharpening should not be added (this is a matter of taste of course) but maybe not as much.
David Bourke
Leading Member
If you have to ask, then I think that you know the answer. It is definitely over cooked.
It is a nice composition, but it doesn't have great lighting, and you just can't add that in post.
It is a nice composition, but it doesn't have great lighting, and you just can't add that in post.
You know that does actually occur naturally.
Overcooked? Nope. I like it and especially when printed out at say 13x17 or larger. I print landscapes and I'm guessing 90% who purchase my prints go for a bit more saturation. I do like that the shadows in your images fairly accurately what I usually see in nature. Saturation is certainly a YMMV, but I'll always hang a somewhat bold colored print on my wall vs one that may be a bit more accurate color wise to the actual scene. I don't see any wrong vs right here.I reworked an earlier version of this photo previously posted. I normally opt for less contrast/vibrance/saturation but would like opinions on this version. Thanks
Gary
TurtleTown Creek Falls, TN
AviPro
Senior Member
I like your first image.
Now since you have mentioned, I feel that the water is too "white", I dont know how it was really when you saw it.
Would be nice to have some transparency to it but then might make the pic darker.
Now since you have mentioned, I feel that the water is too "white", I dont know how it was really when you saw it.
Would be nice to have some transparency to it but then might make the pic darker.
Sharik0192
Well-known member
Yes, it is overcooked, slightly. But this is not a big problem. IMO there are two things that impact the quality more significantly: pretty bad chromatic aberration, and most importantly, an unnatural look of water created by a fast shutter speed of 1/1000 s that "froze" the motion. Please do not misunderstand me: I'm not a big fan of totally diffuse images of running water created with multi-second exposure: they are equally unnatural. IMO the most natural appearance of water running at moderate speed (rapids, small waterfalls) is obtained at stutter speeds about 1/10 to 1/40 s. Try it (if you haven't done it yet), and you'll be amazed with the result.I reworked an earlier version of this photo previously posted. I normally opt for less contrast/vibrance/saturation but would like opinions on this version. Thanks
Gary
TurtleTown Creek Falls, TN
Cyan, I attempted to remove some of the CAs using a layer or two but without much success. I realize the shot doesn't hold up under close scrutiny at 50-100%, but it may not be a deal breaker at normal size and distance.
Thanks so much for reply
Thanks so much for reply
Sacto, I too (I must admit) am growing to like a more bold appearance for the effect. I'm just not sure where my line is. On the one hand, why should we assume a 2D image on a piece of paper or screen needs to look exactly like the 3D real-life image, color included? When has that ever happened? But I see both sides of it; I traditionally have thought composition trumps other aspects of the image, but colors (even 'unrealistic') get my attention more and more, if done tastefully.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum