01maciel Posted June 13, 2021 Share #1 Posted June 13, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was travelling around the country yesterday. - Somewhere in the boondocks I found an interesting place where I stopped and parked the car for an hour or two. I looked around (very nosy) and started shooting with the M10 and a mounted Noctilux 50/1.0 very soon. The light condition was quite challenging as it was after midday (a week before summer solstice) and the sun was still on high position making a hard light. The first photo is the original DNG with no corrections except the inevitable resizing for the forum converted to a jpg. The second one is the processed one. The result is not bad imho. At least things didn't get worse, but my gut feeling says it could be better. Any ideas how to improve the original dull photo, (ISO 200, 1/3000s, f4 or 5.6, no filter in front of the lens)? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/321789-critique-and-your-thoughts-on-how-to-improve-original-vs-processed-photo/?do=findComment&comment=4219252'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 13, 2021 Posted June 13, 2021 Hi 01maciel, Take a look here Critique and your thoughts on how to improve - original vs processed photo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stuny Posted June 13, 2021 Share #2 Posted June 13, 2021 I look forward to seeing what others suggest, and learning from it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyturk Posted June 13, 2021 Share #3 Posted June 13, 2021 Upload the .dng somewhere so others can play with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2021 Share #4 Posted June 13, 2021 Seems to be an image to confirm the old rule on sunny days:"Between ten and three the photographer is free." During central Europe summer time you have to adjust by an hour:"Between eleven and four, no photographer is on tour."🙂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 13, 2021 Share #5 Posted June 13, 2021 The original has metered from the sky and is well under-exposed. Watch the histogram in LR as you adjust, to satisfy your original aim. While time of day was not ideal, you should easily attain a realistic result. Not near my software at present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01maciel Posted June 14, 2021 Author Share #6 Posted June 14, 2021 vor 18 Stunden schrieb wda: The original has metered from the sky and is well under-exposed. Watch the histogram in LR as you adjust, to satisfy your original aim. While time of day was not ideal, you should easily attain a realistic result. yes, that's what I tried in photo #2. The forum software renders the clouds in #2 very bright. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted June 14, 2021 Share #7 Posted June 14, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some simple tweeks in LR. Inverse the grad filter to lighten/brighten foreground. Then use brush tool to adjust tower exposure and detail, then similar work on trees. Use clone tool to remove yellow sign. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted June 14, 2021 Share #8 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) Maybe the tower could use a little cleaning itself. I work with C1 only, but the dark top could benefit by some micro contrast in that program. If it had been a Monochrome take, the sky might have come a bit too dramatic. If the tower was your remarkable thing to show, you might consider to sacrifice some details in the clouds. The soft sharpness of the Noctilux does not help for this subject either, in the end I see it as an architectural image, but maybe you wanted to convey something else. Edited June 14, 2021 by otto.f Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2021 Share #9 Posted June 20, 2021 It was a good save from an underexposed image, but I really though the total effect a bit dull My tweak was simple: I used the dodge brush and increased vibrance: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Of course the edges are a bit sloppy -normally I would mask the outline of the tower. 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Of course the edges are a bit sloppy -normally I would mask the outline of the tower. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/321789-critique-and-your-thoughts-on-how-to-improve-original-vs-processed-photo/?do=findComment&comment=4223167'>More sharing options...
AndreasG Posted June 20, 2021 Share #10 Posted June 20, 2021 I would brighten up even more, it is summer day at noon. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/321789-critique-and-your-thoughts-on-how-to-improve-original-vs-processed-photo/?do=findComment&comment=4223219'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 26, 2021 Share #11 Posted June 26, 2021 I agree, but you start losing contrast. Maybe it would work on a DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreasG Posted June 26, 2021 Share #12 Posted June 26, 2021 You are right, a processed jpg is certainly not the best basis for further improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 26, 2021 Share #13 Posted June 26, 2021 (edited) Best I can do with the posted JPEG. Opened it in Camera Raw, applied a 'grad' from the top to reduce exposure and highlights in the sky, then increased overall exposure. A few tweaks in Photoshop and the result looks tonally far more viable but is low in colour saturation (on my screen jaapv's look blockily saturated - which may be a result of both starting with a JPEG file and the screen). There is no problem with haloing around the building though. I would really need the RAW file to see if it would be better to start with that. Its always difficult to start with an underexposed image. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited June 26, 2021 by pgk 4 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/321789-critique-and-your-thoughts-on-how-to-improve-original-vs-processed-photo/?do=findComment&comment=4226658'>More sharing options...
01maciel Posted June 27, 2021 Author Share #14 Posted June 27, 2021 The result is not too bad for a jpg If you are interested to fiddle with the original DNG file feel free to use it. Would be nice to describe roughly what you changed incl. the name of the app. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mkso6ckV4dFBdLyJox6F2yq6r8-yuPsL/view?usp=sharing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 27, 2021 Share #15 Posted June 27, 2021 Why not make your invitation more user-friendly by including it in this thread? Accessing an unknown site often deters me from looking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01maciel Posted June 27, 2021 Author Share #16 Posted June 27, 2021 vor 23 Minuten schrieb wda: Why not make your invitation more user-friendly by including it in this thread? Accessing an unknown site often deters me from looking. How? The file is quite a big fellow and 24MB. Limit of the forum is 2.5MB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 27, 2021 Share #17 Posted June 27, 2021 Why not reduce the file size for the intended purpose? Little is gained by posting big files for online analysis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01maciel Posted June 29, 2021 Author Share #18 Posted June 29, 2021 Am 27.6.2021 um 22:27 schrieb wda: Why not reduce the file size for the intended purpose? Little is gained by posting big files for online analysis. imho DNG files can't be compressed furthermore or reduced - or am I missing something? Converting the DNG file in a 8 Bit TIFF doesn't help for the purpose. Could you please more specific. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2021 Share #19 Posted June 29, 2021 Am 20.6.2021 um 08:08 schrieb AndreasG: I would brighten up even more, it is summer day at noon. ... Am 26.6.2021 um 15:42 schrieb pgk: Best I can do with the posted JPEG. Opened it in Camera Raw, applied a 'grad' from the top to reduce exposure and highlights in the sky, then increased overall exposure. A few tweaks in Photoshop and the result looks tonally far more viable but is low in colour saturation (on my screen jaapv's look blockily saturated - which may be a result of both starting with a JPEG file and the screen). There is no problem with haloing around the building though. I would really need the RAW file to see if it would be better to start with that. Its always difficult to start with an underexposed image. ... With all appreciation of the efforts for the image, both edits look as if the lower part of the tower had been cleaned with a super special agent, while the upper part still shows traces of soot from a violent fire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 29, 2021 Share #20 Posted June 29, 2021 19 minutes ago, mnutzer said: With all appreciation of the efforts for the image, both edits look as if the lower part of the tower had been cleaned with a super special agent, while the upper part still shows traces of soot from a violent fire. It could be adjusted further but doing so would take more time and the area would probably start to show signs that it had been over processed as it was significantly underexposed. If it is an extraordinary, one off image of great interest or value then its worh trying but otherwise it is going to be a lot of work just to prove that adjustments can be made to improve an image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now