# Along the River



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

I walk along the river. Great walking trails. Looking for birds. They are scarce, so the wider zoom comes out to try and share the scenery.

C&C always valued. Thanks for looking.


----------



## PJcam (Jan 30, 2018)

Nice set zulu42, there can be so much character in trees and it often shows best when the leaves are off.

I like the position of light in each too.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 30, 2018)

Good set, though the second is my favorite!


----------



## BrentC (Jan 30, 2018)

Very nice set.  I struggle with landscape myself and would love to get shots like this.   I really like #2 and #3.  Those trees give good images.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 30, 2018)

Really love that 2nd shot, beautiful.


----------



## Cortian (Jan 30, 2018)

Very nice set.  Nice use of light and shadow, z42.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 30, 2018)

Love the third photo -- splendid!

Got some things for you to consider and I'll just go ahead and show them all to you to start in a side by side:



 

I know you have LR, don't know what camera took this photo and/or what other software you have available.

Biggest difference is sky color. Apart from sunrise/sunset there's not a lot of variation in the color of the daytime sky unless you've got some type of air contaminant involved. So maybe that's the smoke left over from burning half of southern CA but most likely it's just your camera's software. In the sRGB color space a clear blue afternoon sky will have a Hue value of 211. Once the sky is blue your photo wonderfully takes full advantage of the color complement pair -- blue/orange. For me no two other colors look so good together.

If you can load your original into PS and examine the image histogram you see it falls short of the right side of the graph -- especially if you look at the luminosity histogram. Here's histograms for both your and my version of your photo.



 

Notice that the last approx. 1/5 of the graph on the right is completely unused by the data in your photo. As a result the total tone range of your photo is compressed and it completely lacks any bright tones. Visual difference is that my version appears brighter and has more contrast. This get's into the messier issue of expression trumps science -- if that's the way you want it to look then you win. But as a general rule we prefer images that deliver a full range of tones and so graph to fill the histogram corner to corner. If you depart from that then hopefully you've done it deliberately and thoughtfully.

The last thing I did was more just for fun but I thought you'd find it interesting. You obviously have a very wide lens. One liability of using lenses like that is called volume deformation -- that tree on the far left looks like it's being stretched into the upper corner. I like wide lenses too, a lot, and I use them enough that I long ago invested in some special software: Overview | DxO.com. ViewPoint has the ability to counter classic wideangle volume deformation to a degree. If your photo contained EXIF data Viewpoint would have been able to make lens specific adjustments.

Congrats -- great photo.

Joe


----------



## BrentC (Jan 30, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> Love the third photo -- splendid!
> 
> Got some things for you to consider and I'll just go ahead and show them all to you to start in a side by side:
> 
> ...



Did you just adjust the whites/light to bring it over tho the right?


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 30, 2018)

BrentC said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Love the third photo -- splendid!
> ...



Since the photo was already a JPEG I took it straight to PS rather than LR. In PS I used Levels, but yes the goal was to get the white point raised. In LR the Whites slider sets the white point.

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

PJcam said:


> Nice set zulu42, there can be so much character in trees and it often shows best when the leaves are off.
> 
> I like the position of light in each too.



Thanks very much PJ. I agree, bare trees add an automatic mood to a photo.



smoke665 said:


> Good set, though the second is my favorite!


I really appreciate that, smoke. Thank you.



BrentC said:


> Very nice set.  I struggle with landscape myself and would love to get shots like this.   I really like #2 and #3.  Those trees give good images.


Thank you kindly Brent. I just started reading a book about landscape photography, hoping that will help.



SquarePeg said:


> Really love that 2nd shot, beautiful.


 !



Cortian said:


> Very nice set.  Nice use of light and shadow, z42.



Thanks so much, Cortian. Low light is a good friend to all of us!


@Ysarex , Let me say a heartfelt thank you for taking the time to respond as such. I'm going to respond more completely as I find more time.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

A couple of shooting notes, and I apologize that I didn't include these in my original post. Posting for critique, the notes can provide valuable information. Embarrassingly, I'm at work and  still don't have the exposure settings to share.

I hoped for these shots to be good images, but I also shot them as an exercise in processing and a test of my computer's handling of large files.
Taken with my new D800 and a 24-85  1:3.5-4.5G shot in raw. You will see what I mean by "large files":

First image is HDR _and_ Panorama. Camera in vertical orientation, shoot 3 exposures, rotate camera, shoot 3 exposures. In LR, first merged to HDR, then stitched to panorama. Six raw 36mp files into one project, plus adjustments. Yes, it slowed down LR lol. Plus, I probably could have gotten almost the same shot in one exposure 

Second image is HDR, 3 exposures. I actually took about 5 exposures, almost black to totally blown, but chose 3 exposures to merge. Not sure if I should merge exposures that are one or two stops apart, or go for a more extreme range. My goal in landscape HDR is to avoid the overcooked look, but have some increased range.

Third shot is another panorama. Not HDR. Camera in landscape orientation, zoomed out to 24mm. I wondered what LR was going to do with all the distortion. Playing with the different merge options, I chose the perspective layout projection. Also, the right side of the panorama was cropped quite a bit on the right side, so you don't see the heavy distortion as much on the right.

@Ysarex 
Your edit is brilliant. Took the photograph to another level, and I can't thank you enough.

Clear blue sky has a hue value of  211. I must have missed that day in school lol. Thank you so much for including that tidbit! I had a hard time with the sky color. Did you just adjust the overall WB until the blue had that value?

I saw what the right side of the histogram showed, and I really struggled with it. I was trying to correct the whites in LR, but everything I did to try and fill in that side of the histogram left the picture looking too sparkly, unnatural contrast. Specifically, I didn't like what raising the whites, highlights sliders, or curves adjustments, were doing to the highlights on the little green sage plants lower left and the brightest yellow brush along the far shoreline. Somehow you managed to bring the highlights up without making it look over processed. I'm going to try and match your edits!

After the panorama merge, I left the perspective alone. Your edit of the perspective is another great improvement. I also like the aspect ratio it created. I wonder if I can get close to that with the vertical perspective adjustment in LR's lens correction panel.

Your edit is the image I wish I had posted. Your comments were extremely helpful. I just cannot thank you enough.

Finally, a critique of myself. Seeing these three images next to each other in this thread, I realized a real problem. If you look at them, especially from the horizon down, they all have the exact same freaking composition! That is a rut I need to get out of quick.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

Maybe the highlights or contrast is so hyped on my monitor, that it looks like crap when the histogram is balanced. A lot of my images end up with the right side of the histogram lopped off.


----------



## fishing4sanity (Jan 30, 2018)

I wish I had that river to walk along, beautiful area and I could use more walking. I was favoring #2, but that Ysarex edit is great & informative, I wish I knew enough to garner its full teaching power.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 30, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> @Ysarex
> Your edit is brilliant. Took the photograph to another level, and I can't thank you enough.



Don't flatter me too much, my wife says I already have too big a head.



zulu42 said:


> Clear blue sky has a hue value of  211. I must have missed that day in school lol. Thank you so much for including that tidbit! I had a hard time with the sky color. Did you just adjust the overall WB until the blue had that value?



211 sRGB -- in a different color space it's a different value. I did not just adjust the WB. Unfortunately that won't work once the raw file has been rendered to RGB. It would work with a raw (NEF) file. So instead I targeted the blue and altered only that. I used PS and the Hue/Saturation tool. That's far and away the biggest impact I had on the image; bringing the sky color around to normal.



zulu42 said:


> I saw what the right side of the histogram showed, and I really struggled with it. I was trying to correct the whites in LR, but everything I did to try and fill in that side of the histogram left the picture looking too sparkly, unnatural contrast. Specifically, I didn't like what raising the whites, highlights sliders, or curves adjustments, were doing to the highlights on the little green sage plants lower left and the brightest yellow brush along the far shoreline. Somehow you managed to bring the highlights up without making it look over processed. I'm going to try and match your edits!



Black and white points are really critical. Set them and if you don't like what happens to other sections of the photo that's what the adjustment brush is for.



zulu42 said:


> After the panorama merge, I left the perspective alone. Your edit of the perspective is another great improvement. I also like the aspect ratio it created. I wonder if I can get close to that with the vertical perspective adjustment in LR's lens correction panel.



Viewpoint's capabilities are unique. You may do better in LR especially if you have the latest version (some improvements in that area), but if you need what Viewpoint can do then only Viewpoint can do it.



zulu42 said:


> Your edit is the image I wish I had posted. Your comments were extremely helpful. I just cannot thank you enough.



Happy to help. I took the time because the photo is so good -- nice shot.

Joe



zulu42 said:


> Finally, a critique of myself. Seeing these three images next to each other in this thread, I realized a real problem. If you look at them, especially from the horizon down, they all have the exact same freaking composition! That is a rut I need to get out of quick.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 30, 2018)

Glad to hear you got that D800! Agreed, the last picture is a nice one. The foreground elements help it a lot.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

fishing4sanity said:


> I wish I had that river to walk along, beautiful area and I could use more walking.


If you looked at the images and wished to be walking along the river, well, that was the exact intent of the photographs. Your comment made me feel great  . You have an open invitation.



Derrel said:


> Glad to hear you got that D800! Agreed, the last picture is a nice one. The foreground elements help it a lot.



Thank you Derrel! Yep, I got it. I could fill a whole thread with questions about setup and operation, but I have it up and running, and working through learning this incredible tool.

@Ysarex,
This is a new edit. I actually had your edit  open in a window as I continued to struggle to get the sky blue. I got it to here by slightly adjusting the overall WB and then targeting blue in the HSL panel. All in LR. I have PS also but I'm not familiar enough with the color controls.

In the lens correction I used distortion +11 and vertical -2.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 30, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> fishing4sanity said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I had that river to walk along, beautiful area and I could use more walking.
> ...



There you go -- it needs that blue sky. The blue and orange together in the photo are a real winning combination. Much better brightness/contrast as well. That's a wall hanger, congrats.

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

Thanks very much! Can you see the splotches and lines in the color gradient in the sky? Or is it just my monitor(a television) has a reduced bit depth or something?


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 30, 2018)

I would take the original over the edits. Both edits now look over processed. It's exactly what I was talking about in the other thread elsewhere that went to cr*p. You can see what the problem likely was and how the attempted fix was made just by looking at either of the edits even if you had never seen the original.
I would edit these differently myself but I would've also shot them differently. Composition could've been tightened up. You'd need to change viewpoint a fraction in 2 of them at the shooting stage so a straight crop after the fact wouldn't do the trick.

Very good pics don't get me wrong but offering some feedback.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 30, 2018)

I appreciate your opinion @F5 Penguin and would be interested to hear your suggested viewpoint changes. At this learning stage I try to keep composition first and foremost, before any editing decisions.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 30, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> I appreciate your opinion @F5 Penguin and would be interested to hear your suggested viewpoint changes. At this learning stage I try to keep composition first and foremost, before any editing decisions.



Sounds like a good plan. I won't change anything and re-up it because like I said, you won't get the full effect unless it was done at the shooting stage.

Shot 1.
Looks like you had a 3rd tree to deal with that you can see a little of top right in the pic. Looks like you were trying to take it out without killing off the tree next to it because you wanted the tree next to it in the shot.
You framed too soft. Don't half kill something because it comes back to bite you in the butt! You could've taken a large chunk off the right of frame, a chunk from the top, nothing would be missed by the viewer and the intruding tree would virtually be completely elmininated. The tree you were trying to save ain't as pretty as the main tree. You could've taken some of it out. By getting in closer you would've taken out the foreground ditch as well. There's nothing there of interest, kill it. The only issue you would've had left was the sun. A change of vantage point you could've moved and got all these elements to work together. If it was all done perfectly I would imagine you would have that good looking tree as the main focal point, the second tree would be there to a large degree but would now be a secondary interest no longer an equal first interest as it is currently and the overall strength of the image would be much greater.

Shot 2.
Nice except for the big dark corner. Best to not show the end of the tree. It takes up too much image space and has no interest. You need to take it out but a straight crop will leave the image a little unbalanced I would say so again, needs to be done at the shooting stage.

Shot 3.
Current crop leaves me either wishing you had backed up a little more or got in a little closer. Foreground is at the half half stage not sure if we want to go back or we want to go forward. I don't know what was there in reality, I imagine looking at what's there that I can see back probably would add nothing but uninteresting elements. In this case I would go forward. It could still be a pano. Take out the bottom up to where the pile of dead trees are. The shot is about the two trees. If you tightened like this they would really stand out a lot more improving the overall strength of the image. Even for this one, a little change at the shooting stage probably would be required.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 31, 2018)

Oh, for when you do focus on processing, here's my take. Digital we can do anything, no limits. Nothing wrong with ripping an original photo to pieces and processing the bejesus out of it. Simply decide what you want, you gonna go nuts processing or you gonna keep it looking real. It's the halfway efforts that look wrong and ruin an image. Whichever way you choose to go with processing neither method is right or wrong, good or bad. It's personal preference for what suits your own style or what you think will suit a given image best.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 31, 2018)

Shot 1 - I really see what you're saying. It's these crucial decisions when clicking the shutter where it starts. 

shot 2 - yep. good points. BTW , to share, this is the shot as framed in camera. 




Your comments on shot 3 are also very valid and I thank you for taking the time. Framing the shot in camera is a  stage that I rush, for some reason. I need to take my time. shoot more film.


----------



## F5 Penguin (Jan 31, 2018)

On the one you just put up, million choices for how to shoot a scene like this. You just got to watch you don't end up with dead areas in the frame. I would've gone back a little in the one you put up just now. Then you could go in Photoshop and do some dodge and burn to make the inside of the trunk have some WOW factor. Instant masterpiece!


----------



## mdsphotography (Jan 31, 2018)

Really like #2


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 31, 2018)

I can't keep that edit. The splotches in the sky along the top edge show up on multiple monitors. I screwed the color gradient in the sky and don't know how to go back lol


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 31, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> I can't keep that edit. The splotches in the sky along the top edge show up on multiple monitors. I screwed the color gradient in the sky and don't know how to go back lol



You should still have the processing in LR -- you said you used LR to do the work. Did you start with an original NEF file?

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 31, 2018)

Yeah I'm sure I can back out of the recent changes in LR. I started with .nef, then after the pano merge it was something else (.dng?) Then, I think I cropped it in PS and it came out of that a .tif...


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 31, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> Yeah I'm sure I can back out of the recent changes in LR. I started with .nef, then after the pano merge it was something else (.dng?) Then, I think I cropped it in PS and it came out of that a .tif...



And that sounds like the root of your troubles. When you import the NEF files to LR you leave them as NEFs and don't convert to DNG? Yes, you should not convert to DNG. The pano from multiple NEFs however LR may want to save as DNG -- can't be saved as NEF. That should be OK. The move then to PS and the image format is converted again this time to a TIFF. Here you want to be certain that PS is converting your file to a 16 bit TIFF and not an 8 bit TIFF. I you do processing work on an 8 bit TIFF you're running the risk of banding and posterization -- splotchy skies as you say.

Joe

P.S. As soon as you can get off the TV as a monitor and get a calibrated display appropriate for photo editing.


----------



## zulu42 (Jan 31, 2018)

Thank you, Joe. Correct, I leave the files as NEF. They only change to DNG when LR forces them to. I will dig into PS to see if I can find the file save settings. I don't know why it changes to TIFF, or what bit rate.
When I am editing in LR, and I want PS for something, I use "edit as smart object in Photoshop" rather than "edit in Photoshop". I wonder if that affects file save settings. I'll work on it. And yes, a monitor is on the list


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 31, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> Thank you, Joe. Correct, I leave the files as NEF. They only change to DNG when LR forces them to. I will dig into PS to see if I can find the file save settings. I don't know why it changes to TIFF, or what bit rate.
> When I am editing in LR, and I want PS for something, I use "edit as smart object in Photoshop" rather than "edit in Photoshop". I wonder if that affects file save settings. I'll work on it. And yes, a monitor is on the list



Once open in PS you should be able to check the bit depth of your smart object from the menu Image -> Mode.

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Feb 1, 2018)

Well, it is checked at 16 bits. I can't change the sky color without introducing banding and posterization. Can't do it in a Tiff or a DNG. Actually, the dang DNG had posterization in the sky already. I'm doing it wrong. target blues, hue +2 and increase saturation. Just about the point where it turns the sky a nice blue, it starts to get ugly


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 1, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> Well, it is checked at 16 bits. I can't change the sky color without introducing banding and posterization. Can't do it in a Tiff or a DNG. Actually, the dang DNG had posterization in the sky already. I'm doing it wrong. target blues, hue +2 and increase saturation. Just about the point where it turns the sky a nice blue, it starts to get ugly



You say it's a pano merge from multiple NEF files, right? Or is it an HDR merge? If LR creates a DNG output and that already shows banding as a result of the merge then we need to look at LR and that process.

Joe


----------



## zulu42 (Feb 1, 2018)

Correct, a panorama merge, not HDR.
To be honest, I made so many virtual copies with different edits, I cannot say for certain that pano merge had banding as a result of the merge. I may have done some other subsequent edits that caused it. 

I don't want to drag you into this banding issue rabbit hole, you've been more than helpful already. If I decide to save this photo, I'll dig out the original 3 nef files and start from scratch.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 1, 2018)

zulu42 said:


> Correct, a panorama merge, not HDR.
> To be honest, I made so many virtual copies with different edits, I cannot say for certain that pano merge had banding as a result of the merge. I may have done some other subsequent edits that caused it.
> 
> I don't want to drag you into this banding issue rabbit hole, you've been more than helpful already. If I decide to save this photo, I'll dig out the original 3 nef files and start from scratch.



That sounds like the right plan.

Joe


----------

