| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2014 12:12:11 AM · #1 |
I am working on improving my post processing skills, and fully utilize my existing software. I would love some feedback on two images I recently edited. These are from St George Utah in December of 2009.
 |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 12:53:34 AM · #2 |
For starters, what existing software is it that you're using?
I like your second image better than the first. They don't look like they've been heavily edited, which can be a good thing if they don't need it.
If it's not intended for a given print size, I would probably recommend cropping that second image to remove the row of boulders near the bottom and giving it a wider aspect ratio. The tones look pretty lifelike, so no problem there... I do see what look like JPEG artifacts in the sky, might have been from saving it at a lower quality setting? |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 07:35:47 AM · #3 |
They both seem perfectly ok to me too and agree that any processing is not noticeable.
The thing that strikes me is that they are both slightly boring images with uninteresting lighting.
Possibly not possible :) but a different time of day would certainly improve these in my opinion.
And some focal point of course, but again possibly no.............. |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 11:50:54 AM · #4 |
Thank you both for your constructive comments. I will keep playing around with them based on your feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to help me out.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2014 12:36:52 PM · #5 |
| I like both pictures and I agree on the fact that they do not look heavily processed which is a good thing. In the first picture I'd maybe add a bit of contrast just to enhance the blue sky but that's just a small nitpick. I think it's a beautiful and calm scenery. |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 12:39:11 PM · #6 |
I snagged the "Full size" image (3769x2513) and plopped it in Photoshop. If you zoom in to 200%, there's huge pixels. I shouldn't be seeing these huge pixels at this size. The enlarged pixels means that there's no smooth color transition between neighboring pixels. This is most visible in the sky where you have "banding". Often this can be a result of over-processing, but it appears your processing was pretty minimal. Did you save the image at a really low quality setting?
I'd love to help you get to the bottom of this. Would you mind sharing your editing steps from start to finish for one of the images? If we can figure out where all your pixels are going, you'll end up with a far more "crisp and clean" final image.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2014 12:57:25 PM · #7 |
Heavy banding in the sky aside, I just added a little warmth and contrast....took me 3 minutes.
Before:
After:
Message edited by author 2014-09-14 12:58:10. |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 02:13:58 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Heavy banding in the sky aside, I just added a little warmth and contrast....took me 3 minutes.
Before:
After:
|
Amazing what a little contrast can do! |
|
|
|
09/14/2014 04:43:54 PM · #9 |
Pixel issues aside, for me it's a compositional issue. Since the sky is uninteresting, I'd crop to minimize that, select what's left, and darken it. Also probably denoise it, since that seems to be where the issues are. Also, crop out most of the foreground since it's a lot of the same, and the colorful banding of the mountains is what catches the eye. Then you'd have a nice, wide panorama-looking image featuring the best parts. Did a REALLY subtle vignette to further focus the eye.
I also warmed up the reds a little because they were too blue to my eye. Here's a quick edit
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 06:52:52 PM EDT.
