Foggy Cemetery


isdky

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 09:52
Hi all,

Would like some constructive feedback on this one I shot this morning in the cemetery - never really tried a foggy image and found it quite hard to retain the fog after processing.

Original:



After Processing:



Processing steps:

1. Open with Camera RAW and tweaked levels and curves to pull details from shadows and retain highlights.

2. Save to tiff - adjust exposure +/- 2 ev then save a tiff of each of these.

3. Open three tiffs in photomatix and create HDR.

4. Tone map generated HDR image to bring out the details in the gravestones and trees.

5. Open tonemapped HDR back in Photoshop, adjusted the Vibrance/Saturation levels and adjusted Shadows/Highlights and midtones.

6. Created new layer on original (0 ev adjusted) shot and pasted in the tonemapped/tweaked shot,changing its layer type to screen.

7. adjusted original layers opacity to 20% to brighten up the HDR without removing details.

8. Merge layers, then smart sharpen - then unsharp mask... then Done.

Hopefully no-one found that too long winded!

Brian.
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." Terry Pratchett

Flickr Photostream

johnriley

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 12:22
The thing about this IMHO is it's very difficult to retain the mistiness if we process the image as you have done. It loses all the misty effect and doing HDR means it ends up a different sort of image.

Too dark for me and not enough light, impenetrable mist, but to be fair then you start to turn it into my vision of the image, not yours. And it should be yours.

So you are the final arbiter of what you want to achieve - HDR or mist?
Best regards, John
Last Edited by johnriley on 24/02/2009 - 12:22

isdky

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 13:07
Thanks for the feedback John, I had a go at addressing the darkness, lighting and mist - not sure if its what you meant as I often read things wrong!


- edit, replaced with a slightly less bright version - didnt realise it would remove this one using replace on flickr

So here, I took the processed image, duplicated it three times then had one way over exposed as a blur mask applied as a soft light layer, another as a luminosity boost, and the third to thicken up the fog.

Quote:
what you want to achieve - HDR or mist?

I'd prefer HDR and Mist if I can get it! as the HDR really brings out the details on the gravestones and on the path.
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." Terry Pratchett

Flickr Photostream
Last Edited by isdky on 26/02/2009 - 19:27

johnriley

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 14:24
Well, bringing out detail and mist are sort of mutually exclusive, aren't they? Mist obscures and therein I think lies the problem. Can you have both?

Having said that, the composition is good. A nice lead in drops off into mist in the distance, which is also good. I would think more mist for me, but, as I said, it's your image.
Best regards, John

Anvh

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 15:03
The last image doesn't feel natural anymore... I atleast dont like it to be honest.

Maybe if you play some with the curves on your psuedo hdr image you can get some mist back but still keep the stones like that
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

davidtrout

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 16:48
John asked: 'What do you want to achieve, HDR or mist?' and pointed out that surely mistiness and HDR are mutually exclusive. I couldn't agree with him more.
You have a well composed photo here with bags of atmosphere. Go for that etherial quality and forget HDR in this picture at least. Here let pictorial aesthetics replace technicalities.
david
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

womble

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 17:14
Personally, I would process this very differently. Forget HDR, go for the mistyness. Convert to B&W, the colour doesn't add much anyway. Last, use the perspective/distort stuff in PS (or whatever) to correct the inward leaning gravestones.

But then, as John says, that is my vision of the picture not yours.

BTW. I am unsure that you need HDR for this image anyway. The range from light to dark is not very great. Tweaking the curve or using the shadow/highlight adjustment in PS would work easily as well.

I have some misty trees in my gallery.

Cheers, Kris.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

Anvh

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 17:27
womble wrote:
I am unsure that you need HDR for this image anyway. The range from light to dark is not very great. Tweaking the curve or using the shadow/highlight adjustment in PS would work easily as well.

The HDR is maked from one photo so you can make the HDR with curves if you want. I never know why someone would create 3 photos out of one photo and merge them back together again, it just sound weird to beging with.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

womble

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 17:28
I hope you don't mind (and I'll remove it if you want me to) but here is my take on it done very quickly. If it was my image and I had the RAW file I'd work on getting everything just how I wanted it. This version looks a bit flat, I'd play with the various conversion settings and the curves.

BTW. I think it is an image with GREAT potential, hence my efforts. It is a nice shot.



Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

Karl

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 18:57
My initial thoughts upon first seeing your images (and as have already been done further down the thread) go black and white - absolutely, then add lots of contrast and even some film grain effect.

matic

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 18:57
hello,

i saw nothing in the first image that needed much fiddling with in photoshop, it looks better as it was

our eyes only focus on what we are looking at directly, everything else is out of focus, (by varying degrees) so there would be no need for everything to be sharp,and bright, the mist obscures objects brilliantly.

the first thing i looked at was the path, to see where it went,anything else didnt seem to matter, i knew it was a graveyard, and it was misty.

good picture
many thanks,

roger.

pentax cameras - spotmatic, spotmatic spII pinhole, MX, Sfx-n, k1000, p30
pentax lenses - 28mm,50mm,105mm,150mm,300mm

Mike-P

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 19:26
I also prefer the original, it has more atmosphere without the processing.

I must admit though when I first saw the title I was quite intrigued by what was in a Froggy cemetary ... will teach me to read slower I suppose.
. My Flickr

isdky

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 19:39
Thanks for all the help/comments - this has been really constructive (unlike flickr lol!).

This one is my final attempt, I have tried Kris' ideas on this one to make it more spooky/moody although I may have over-processed the fog.




I'd love to list what I did, but this really was just a play with photoshop til I was happy with the result - even had a go at removing the distortion on the closest stone on the right of the frame.

Thanks again!


PS.
Quote:
If it was my image and I had the RAW file I'd work on getting everything just how I wanted it. - womble

If you would like the RAW to play with I have no problems posting it for download, be kinda cool to see others variations on a single image - would make a nice processing competitions section on the forum maybe?

Brian.
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." Terry Pratchett

Flickr Photostream

Prieni

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 19:59
isdky wrote:

If you would like the RAW to play with I have no problems posting it for download, be kinda cool to see others variations on a single image - would make a nice processing competitions section on the forum maybe?

Brian.

Brian,

good idea (I'm getting itchy fingers already...), but I still have some shots from September to process, let alone those of December/January. Then there's the competitions to take care of (took a lot of shots over the weekend and have some more to do) and, I almost forgot, I have a day job to attend to.

Still a tempting offer...

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page

GivingTree

Link Posted 24/02/2009 - 20:10
That last one is the best, IMO.
"Just put your eye to the camera and push the button-thingy."
Flickr page:
link
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.