# I feel like there is something missing with these.



## HeidiMartinez

Hi forum.  I have been trying to capture some landscape photographs for a while and feel like they are missing something.  Am I just not getting the right light or is my post editing way off.  I could really use some critique and advice with these.  Maybe I just haven't yet found my style yet.  Somethings up though and I thank anyone in advance for any snipped of advice.

Sorry for posting links, I am unable to figure out how to import images without being told there is a problem.

Landscapes - Heidi Martinez
Landscapes - Heidi Martinez
Landscapes - Heidi Martinez


----------



## Piccell

Definitely missing something...the images are missing.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Piccell said:


> Definitely missing something...the images are missing.



Hehe must have caught this before I realized and edited to show links.  I hope they are working now


----------



## Piccell

Links ate there but I don't like following blind links on my phone so I won't see them.
Why didn't you post the images?


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Piccell said:


> Links ate there but I don't like following blind links on my phone so I won't see them.
> Why didn't you post the images?



I have tried a few times and get this message. Security error occurred. Please press back, refresh the page, and try again. 

The links are to my crevado portfolio pages with the pics.


----------



## Piccell

Resize them to 1000 pixels on the long side and under 4mb files.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Piccell said:


> Resize them to 1000 pixels on the long side and under 4mb files.



Thank you!! I did and yes they worked!!


----------



## Piccell

If you use the lines in the photo so they lead you somewhere in the photo, focus you on a subject, you'll get better results. The lines of the roads in yours lead the eye off the edge and end the visual excursion prematurely.
Give the viewer something to look at and lead the eyes there with the other elements.
Keep working on composition.

11 Surefire Landscape Photography Tips

Landscape Photography Tips -- National Geographic


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Piccell said:


> If you use the lines in the photo so they lead you somewhere in the photo, focus you on a subject, you'll get better results. The lines of the roads in yours lead the eye off the edge and end the visual excusing prematurely.
> Give the viewer something to look at and lead the eyes there with the other elements.
> Keep working on composition.
> 
> 11 Surefire Landscape Photography Tips
> 
> Landscape Photography Tips -- National Geographic



Great advice.  I hadn't realized this and I see what you mean!  And thanks for the links


----------



## thereyougo!

I think the seat in number 2 needs someone sat on it - though the rocks aren't helping as they are dominating the scene while adding nothing to the scene IMO


----------



## Gary A.

They all feel empty, sterile, cold. As you stated missing something.  I am not a landscape guy, but remember that photography is a form of communication ... in many/most ways no different than the written word. Often it is helpful to think about what you want to say before you release the shutter.  #2 is my favorite.  It says loneliness, empty, void of people, end of the road, to me. This is fine if that is what you desire to convey.  The others say empty, but in a not so good way ... empty as in a mistake was made and you forgot to include something.  Look for a subject that you can isolate or highlight/emphasize through lens selection, camera position and/or camera settings.  In the bottom images, to my eye, the main subjects are posts and rocks ... but you treated them much the same as the the remaining elements in the image. By not isolating/emphasizing the rocks and posts you have them competing against the other elements in the image for the viewer's attention. This distracts and diminishes the viewer's attention. After a glance, the viewer says to themselves ... I don't get it, what is this photo saying? 

If you're using the posts/rocks/road as framing elements ... then you need a subject for them to frame ... in your case most of what they are framing is, more or less, uniform background.  If there was a strong landscape element in the image the framing would work to your advantage.

In the end of the road image, (my favorite), the rocks in the foreground compete against the message I glean from the image of loneliness/emptiness, which is focused on the bench. Had you moved to the right, you could have eliminated the foreground rocks from the image and from competing against the bench, (and the message I get), as a focus point attracting the eye of the viewer away from the bench.

Don't be afraid to get low and shoot up or up and shoot down, explore all the possibilities of adding 'adjectives' to the story that you're telling through photography. Attention to details will often add greater success to your images. Example, in the last photo you have that shade structure to the right ... it detracts from the rest of the landscape.  In the next one up, you have cars to the right and the red post in the middle ... again more distractions.  Often, when shooting the beauty of nature, it is best to keep man made elements out of the frame.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary


----------



## Piccell

Cold...bingo. Your white balance is way too cool for a warm inviting landscape to be warm and inviting... lol


----------



## Derrel

Posts and rocks and grasses can all make good foreground elements, but one of the challenges is to make them look 1) interesting and 2)logically placed. Wide-angle lenses make close objects appear large, and make distance seem greater, which leads to distant objects that lack physical size on the sensor, and lack visual weight.

it is challenging to learn how to "see" the ay a camera lens sees. These are basically, shot from too far away, with too short of a lens focal length, to make the foreground objects BIG, and also interesting. Same goes for the mid-distance and the most-distant parts of the scenes.

I would experiment with lens focal length; Try going to longer lens focal lengths.

With this lens, you need to be much physically closer to the foreground objects, to make them render physically BIGGER; this is the basic issue with all of these...focal length and camera-to-subject distance, neither of which are optimal to make really interesting, compelling "views".


----------



## Tim Tucker

I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Gary A. said:


> They all feel empty, sterile, cold. As you stated missing something.  I am not a landscape guy, but remember that photography is a form of communication ... in many/most ways no different than the written word. Often it is helpful to think about what you want to say before you release the shutter.  #2 is my favorite.  It says loneliness, empty, void of people, end of the road, to me. This fine fine if that is what you desire to convey.  The other say empty, but in a no so good way ... empty as in a mistake was made and you forgot to include something.  Look for a subject that you can isolate or highlight/emphasize through lens selection, camera position and/or camera setting.  In the bottom images, to my eye, the main subjects are posts and rocks ... but you treated them much the same as the the remaining elements in the image. By not isolating/emphasizing the rocks and posts you have them competing against the other elements in the image for the viewer's attention. This distracts and diminishes the viewer's attention. After a glance, the viewer says to themselves ... I don't get it, what is this photo saying?
> 
> If you're using the posts/rocks/road as framing elements ... then you need a subject for them to frame ... in your case most of what they are framing is, more or less, uniform background.  If there was a strong landscape element in the image the framing would work to your advantage.
> 
> In the end of the road image, (my favorite), the rocks in the foreground compete against the message I glean from the image of loneliness/emptiness, which is focused on the bench. Had you moved to the right, you could have eliminated the foreground rocks from the image and from competing against the bench, (and the message I get), as a focus point attracting the eye of the viewer away from the bench.
> 
> Don't be afraid to get low and shoot up or up and shoot down, explore all the possibilities of adding 'adjectives' to the story that you're telling through photography. Attention to details will often add greater success to your images. Example, in the last photo you have that shade structure to the right ... it detracts from the rest of the landscape.  In the next one up, you have cars to the right and the red post in the middle ... again more distractions.  Often, when shooting the beauty of nature, it is best to keep man made elements out of the frame.
> 
> Good Luck and Good Shooting,
> Gary



This was awesome advice.  I really see what you are saying here.  They do not tell a story aside from the one with the bench. I will keep these points in mind.  I had just learned to shoot fully manual at the time of taking these and I think I was so distracted with exposure and dof that my focus was not in the actual image 100%  Thank you so much for your advice!


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Derrel said:


> Posts and rocks and grasses can all make good foreground elements, but one of the challenges is to make them look 1) interesting and 2)logically placed. Wide-angle lenses make close objects appear large, and make distance seem greater, which leads to distant objects that lack physical size on the sensor, and lack visual weight.
> 
> it is challenging to learn how to "see" the ay a camera lens sees. These are basically, shot from too far away, with too short of a lens focal length, to make the foreground objects BIG, and also interesting. Same goes for the mid-distance and the most-distant parts of the scenes.
> 
> I would experiment with lens focal length; Try going to longer lens focal lengths.
> 
> With this lens, you need to be much physically closer to the foreground objects, to make them render physically BIGGER; this is the basic issue with all of these...focal length and camera-to-subject distance, neither of which are optimal to make really interesting, compelling "views".



I completely agree with this.  I was using the kit lens when these were taken (18-55 nikkor) and some of these were extremely cropped in.  (composition was a lot worse as I was distracted with shooting manual for the first time.) I have a nice wide angle (10-24 nikkor) and will definitely take this along next time I go out and try experimenting. Thank you!


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Tim Tucker said:


> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234



I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
Click to expand...


Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?

Joe

edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.

Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Ysarex said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
Click to expand...


That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!


----------



## Tim Tucker

HeidiMartinez said:


> I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!



No, I actually scaled back the contrast and don't hold with the saturation slider.

I'll leave you in @Ysarex's capable hands but mainly what I did would've been as follows:

Calibrated my screen.
Corrected the WB first, if you don't then you're really just enhancing any colour cast.
Not move the sliders as far as you did. You had: Highlights -100; Whites -100, which reduces your whites and highlights to mid-grey.
Really all I did was move the sliders back a touch and remove the colour cast.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Tim Tucker said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually scaled back the contrast and don't hold with the saturation slider.
> 
> I'll leave you in @Ysarex's capable hands but mainly what I did would've been as follows:
> 
> Calibrated my screen.
> Corrected the WB first, if you don't then you're really just enhancing any colour cast.
> Not move the sliders as far as you did. You had: Highlights -100; Whites -100, which reduces your whites and highlights to mid-grey.
> Really all I did was move the sliders back a touch and remove the colour cast.
Click to expand...


Wow ok.  So simple but such a difference.  I am guessing colour cast is white balance?  And I do need to buy a screen calibrator.  I am using a macbook with retina screen and I have had to go back several times to make the images brighter because they seem so bright on screen.  Thanks again for the great advice!


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
Click to expand...




HeidiMartinez said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
Click to expand...


Hi Heidi,

That Dropbox file is a JPEG. We can process that, but we can do a lot better if you have an NEF file. The JPEGs you posted at the top of the thread suggest that you shot the originals and saved the raw files (NEF). It's possible that when you loaded everything into LR you had LR convert the NEFs to DNGs. In that case there should be a DNG file around which is also a raw file -- hopefully NEF or DNG.

Here's a basic run through of that file processing the JPEG:






I altered the WB first and warmed the color.

I increased the exposure .4. Then I set white and black points. Do you know how to do that using the alt/option key. Hold down the key and when you go to drag the White slider the screen will turn black. Anything clipped will show as a color or white. Adjust until all diffuse highlights do not show. Reverse with black.

Then I cropped the photo. And next I used the gradient tool to lay two gradients over the photo.





The gradients darken the image -- the goal was to darken both the sky and the foreground but leave the middle section with the structures alone.

After applying the gradient I had to reset the white and black points. I wound up with +68 white and -40 black. The goal is not to clip diffuse highlight and on the other end to just barely reach black -- but reach it.

I reduced the highlights to -70 and left the shadows at 0.

I set the contrast to +30 and the clarity to +15.

Now if you can find that NEF or DNG file I can do a much better job.

Joe


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Ysarex said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Heidi,
> 
> That Dropbox file is a JPEG. We can process that, but we can do a lot better if you have an NEF file. The JPEGs you posted at the top of the thread suggest that you shot the originals and saved the raw files (NEF). It's possible that when you loaded everything into LR you had LR convert the NEFs to DNGs. In that case there should be a DNG file around which is also a raw file -- hopefully NEF or DNG.
> 
> Here's a basic run through of that file processing the JPEG:
> 
> View attachment 130240
> 
> I altered the WB first and warmed the color.
> 
> I increased the exposure .4. Then I set white and black points. Do you know how to do that using the alt/option key. Hold down the key and when you go to drag the White slider the screen will turn black. Anything clipped will show as a color or white. Adjust until all diffuse highlights do not show. Reverse with black.
> 
> Then I cropped the photo. And next I used the gradient tool to lay two gradients over the photo.
> 
> View attachment 130241
> 
> The gradients darken the image -- the goal was to darken both the sky and the foreground but leave the middle section with the structures alone.
> 
> After applying the gradient I had to reset the white and black points. I wound up with +68 white and -40 black. The goal is not to clip diffuse highlight and on the other end to just barely reach black -- but reach it.
> 
> I reduced the highlights to -70 and left the shadows at 0.
> 
> I set the contrast to +30 and the clarity to +15.
> 
> Now if you can find that NEF or DNG file I can do a much better job.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Oh sorry about that,  I dragged the image directly off my card and I guess my laptop converted it.  I will re-upload to dropbox and send you the link again.  It already looks awesome with what you did already.  Thank you!!


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Heidi,
> 
> That Dropbox file is a JPEG. We can process that, but we can do a lot better if you have an NEF file. The JPEGs you posted at the top of the thread suggest that you shot the originals and saved the raw files (NEF). It's possible that when you loaded everything into LR you had LR convert the NEFs to DNGs. In that case there should be a DNG file around which is also a raw file -- hopefully NEF or DNG.
> 
> Here's a basic run through of that file processing the JPEG:
> 
> View attachment 130240
> 
> I altered the WB first and warmed the color.
> 
> I increased the exposure .4. Then I set white and black points. Do you know how to do that using the alt/option key. Hold down the key and when you go to drag the White slider the screen will turn black. Anything clipped will show as a color or white. Adjust until all diffuse highlights do not show. Reverse with black.
> 
> Then I cropped the photo. And next I used the gradient tool to lay two gradients over the photo.
> 
> View attachment 130241
> 
> The gradients darken the image -- the goal was to darken both the sky and the foreground but leave the middle section with the structures alone.
> 
> After applying the gradient I had to reset the white and black points. I wound up with +68 white and -40 black. The goal is not to clip diffuse highlight and on the other end to just barely reach black -- but reach it.
> 
> I reduced the highlights to -70 and left the shadows at 0.
> 
> I set the contrast to +30 and the clarity to +15.
> 
> Now if you can find that NEF or DNG file I can do a much better job.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh sorry about that,  I dragged the image directly off my card and I guess my laptop converted it.  I will re-upload to dropbox and send you the link again.  It already looks awesome with what you did already.  Thank you!!
Click to expand...


OK -- got the NEF. Hang on and I'll be back soon.

Joe


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Ysarex said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll concentrate on the processing, with an example. You're tone-mapping far too much, and what this does is equalise the tones and greys the colours. Which makes them all look the same. Whereas what you want is contrast, or difference between colour and tone. It is the difference that produces the contrasting elements, makes things bright, colourful, etc. I have literally taken 5 minutes to scale back the raw processing and enhance the colour a little, (I also selected the worst offender ):
> 
> View attachment 130234
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I! LOVE! THIS!!!  I struggled to much with this image especially to make it pop.  It just looks so flat.  If you don't mind, how did you achieve this?  Just by boosting contrast and saturation? I could not figure out how to achieve this!  I use lightroom btw.  Thank you so much for taking the time to show me that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you save and edit raw files or do you work with camera JPEG files?
> 
> Joe
> 
> edit: Got that -- looks like you're saving NEF files and processing those in LR.
> 
> Set up a free Dropbox account and you can upload an NEF file -- happy to walk you through the processing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be great!!  I pm'd a dropbox link.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Heidi,
> 
> That Dropbox file is a JPEG. We can process that, but we can do a lot better if you have an NEF file. The JPEGs you posted at the top of the thread suggest that you shot the originals and saved the raw files (NEF). It's possible that when you loaded everything into LR you had LR convert the NEFs to DNGs. In that case there should be a DNG file around which is also a raw file -- hopefully NEF or DNG.
> 
> Here's a basic run through of that file processing the JPEG:
> 
> View attachment 130240
> 
> I altered the WB first and warmed the color.
> 
> I increased the exposure .4. Then I set white and black points. Do you know how to do that using the alt/option key. Hold down the key and when you go to drag the White slider the screen will turn black. Anything clipped will show as a color or white. Adjust until all diffuse highlights do not show. Reverse with black.
> 
> Then I cropped the photo. And next I used the gradient tool to lay two gradients over the photo.
> 
> View attachment 130241
> 
> The gradients darken the image -- the goal was to darken both the sky and the foreground but leave the middle section with the structures alone.
> 
> After applying the gradient I had to reset the white and black points. I wound up with +68 white and -40 black. The goal is not to clip diffuse highlight and on the other end to just barely reach black -- but reach it.
> 
> I reduced the highlights to -70 and left the shadows at 0.
> 
> I set the contrast to +30 and the clarity to +15.
> 
> Now if you can find that NEF or DNG file I can do a much better job.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh sorry about that,  I dragged the image directly off my card and I guess my laptop converted it.  I will re-upload to dropbox and send you the link again.  It already looks awesome with what you did already.  Thank you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK -- got the NEF. Hang on and I'll be back soon.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Can't wait!!


----------



## Piccell

Lower the brightness of the display until it is more lifelike than it currently is.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Piccell said:


> Lower the brightness of the display until it is more lifelike than it currently is.



I definitely need one of those screen calibrators.


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Can't wait!!



Dropbox - DSC_8763.xmp

That's a link to the file DSC_8763.xmp. LR will read an XMP file. If you place your NEF file with the same name (DSC_8763.NEF) and this XMP file together in the same folder then when LR opens your file it will read the XMP and show you everything that I did.





Above are histograms of your processed version of that photo (top) and mine (bottom). They tell you the problem with your file and it's precisely what Tim pointed out. Your images lack normal contrast. A normal contrast photo will have a histogram that extends corner to corner; your's falls substantially short of the right corner (whites).

Your not setting and maintaining white and black points in the photos. You're also pushing too hard with the processing -- the lake wasn't blue and your attempt to make it blue shows. Another guy who hangs out here, Sparky, says; "if it's obvious you did it then you over did it." Sparky's right.




You took the photo with the camera set to auto white balance. AWB usually gets you in the ballpark but never does get the ball to home plate. Your camera's AWB was off a little to the blue/cyan direction. If you load that XMP file you'll see I set temp to 5950 and tint to +8.

The biggest difference you see between the two files is the contrast difference. My version has blacker blacks and whiter whites and that shows throughout the photo. Look right across the lake at the shadows cast by the trees and notice how they're darker in my version. Compare the sky at the horizon and my version is much lighter. I darkened the sky too (used a gradient) but I also made sure the photo didn't lose it's white point.

Set white and black periodically as you work -- set them and reset them. Hold the option/alt key down and click on the white slider. The screen turns black. Move the slider to the right until color shows. Determine that the color showing is diffuse highlights (not reflections) and then move the slider just until the color is gone and stop: white point. Then the same with black. This time the screen turns white. Move the slider until you see just the beginning of black appear. This is different than white. You want to reach black so the goal is to find the spot where black just starts to show up and stop. Make other processing changes then reset the white and black points. Last thing you do when the photo is finished: recheck the white and black points.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Piccell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lower the brightness of the display until it is more lifelike than it currently is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely need one of those screen calibrators.
Click to expand...


On sale: https://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-CMUNS...&sr=8-1-spons&keywords=colormunki+smile&psc=1


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Ysarex said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox - DSC_8763.xmp
> 
> That's a link to the file DSC_8763.xmp. LR will read an XMP file. If you place your NEF file with the same name (DSC_8763.NEF) and this XMP file together in the same folder then when LR opens your file it will read the XMP and show you everything that I did.
> 
> View attachment 130244
> 
> Above are histograms of your processed version of that photo (top) and mine (bottom). They tell you the problem with your file and it's precisely what Tim pointed out. Your images lack normal contrast. A normal contrast photo will have a histogram that extends corner to corner; your's falls substantially short of the right corner (whites).
> 
> Your not setting and maintaining white and black points in the photos. You're also pushing too hard with the processing -- the lake wasn't blue and your attempt to make it blue shows. Another guy who hangs out here, Sparky, says; "if it's obvious you did it then you over did it." Sparky's right.
> 
> View attachment 130247
> You took the photo with the camera set to auto white balance. AWB usually gets you in the ballpark but never does get the ball to home plate. Your camera's AWB was off a little to the blue/cyan direction. If you load that XMP file you'll see I set temp to 5950 and tint to +8.
> 
> The biggest difference you see between the two files is the contrast difference. My version has blacker blacks and whiter whites and that shows throughout the photo. Look right across the lake at the shadows cast by the trees and notice how they're darker in my version. Compare the sky at the horizon and my version is much lighter. I darkened the sky too (used a gradient) but I also made sure the photo didn't lose it's white point.
> 
> Set white and black periodically as you work -- set them and reset them. Hold the option/alt key down and click on the white slider. The screen turns black. Move the slider to the right until color shows. Determine that the color showing is diffuse highlights (not reflections) and then move the slider just until the color is gone and stop: white point. Then the same with black. This time the screen turns white. Move the slider until you see just the beginning of black appear. This is different than white. You want to reach black so the goal is to find the spot where black just starts to show up and stop. Make other processing changes then reset the white and black points. Last thing you do when the photo is finished: recheck the white and black points.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Just got through viewing it in lightroom and it looks so much better.  The one I did looks like lightroom threw up on it lol.  Yours looks so natural and clean.  Setting the white and black points made the image so much more dynamic and other than my abuse of the saturation slider, I think that is what was making my images so flat (lack of dynamic range.) And yes I have been in the habit of leaving the WB in auto.  I will experiment with that next time I am out.  After this, I will be resetting a lot of my images and re-editing them. I will post one or two to here when I finish them.  I can't thank you enough for this information.  I was not expecting it and have learned so much.  I hope that when I become a lot more experienced, I can somehow return the favor. Again Thank You!!!


----------



## Ysarex

HeidiMartinez said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox - DSC_8763.xmp
> 
> That's a link to the file DSC_8763.xmp. LR will read an XMP file. If you place your NEF file with the same name (DSC_8763.NEF) and this XMP file together in the same folder then when LR opens your file it will read the XMP and show you everything that I did.
> 
> View attachment 130244
> 
> Above are histograms of your processed version of that photo (top) and mine (bottom). They tell you the problem with your file and it's precisely what Tim pointed out. Your images lack normal contrast. A normal contrast photo will have a histogram that extends corner to corner; your's falls substantially short of the right corner (whites).
> 
> Your not setting and maintaining white and black points in the photos. You're also pushing too hard with the processing -- the lake wasn't blue and your attempt to make it blue shows. Another guy who hangs out here, Sparky, says; "if it's obvious you did it then you over did it." Sparky's right.
> 
> View attachment 130247
> You took the photo with the camera set to auto white balance. AWB usually gets you in the ballpark but never does get the ball to home plate. Your camera's AWB was off a little to the blue/cyan direction. If you load that XMP file you'll see I set temp to 5950 and tint to +8.
> 
> The biggest difference you see between the two files is the contrast difference. My version has blacker blacks and whiter whites and that shows throughout the photo. Look right across the lake at the shadows cast by the trees and notice how they're darker in my version. Compare the sky at the horizon and my version is much lighter. I darkened the sky too (used a gradient) but I also made sure the photo didn't lose it's white point.
> 
> Set white and black periodically as you work -- set them and reset them. Hold the option/alt key down and click on the white slider. The screen turns black. Move the slider to the right until color shows. Determine that the color showing is diffuse highlights (not reflections) and then move the slider just until the color is gone and stop: white point. Then the same with black. This time the screen turns white. Move the slider until you see just the beginning of black appear. This is different than white. You want to reach black so the goal is to find the spot where black just starts to show up and stop. Make other processing changes then reset the white and black points. Last thing you do when the photo is finished: recheck the white and black points.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just got through viewing it in lightroom and it looks so much better.  The one I did looks like lightroom threw up on it lol.  Yours looks so natural and clean.  Setting the white and black points made the image so much more dynamic and other than my abuse of the saturation slider, I think that is what was making my images so flat (lack of dynamic range.) And yes I have been in the habit of leaving the WB in auto.  I will experiment with that next time I am out.  After this, I will be resetting a lot of my images and re-editing them. I will post one or two to here when I finish them.  I can't thank you enough for this information.  I was not expecting it and have learned so much.  I hope that when I become a lot more experienced, I can somehow return the favor. Again Thank You!!!
Click to expand...


You're saving raw files so white balance is easy.




 

The card is a piece of white Styrofoam cut from a food tray. Any white Styrofoam will do: coffee cup, take-out container, etc. Styrofoam is spectrally neutral so that the color of the light is not changed by the card. Therefore we can measure the color of the light by measuring the card. Card is free. Just take a snapshot of it before or after you take photos. No need for another card shot until the light changes. In LR open the photo of the card and use the WB eyedropper to read the card. Write down or remember the temp and tint values. Open the photo you want to process taken in the same light. Type in temp and tint values.

Joe


----------



## HeidiMartinez

Ysarex said:


> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HeidiMartinez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox - DSC_8763.xmp
> 
> That's a link to the file DSC_8763.xmp. LR will read an XMP file. If you place your NEF file with the same name (DSC_8763.NEF) and this XMP file together in the same folder then when LR opens your file it will read the XMP and show you everything that I did.
> 
> View attachment 130244
> 
> Above are histograms of your processed version of that photo (top) and mine (bottom). They tell you the problem with your file and it's precisely what Tim pointed out. Your images lack normal contrast. A normal contrast photo will have a histogram that extends corner to corner; your's falls substantially short of the right corner (whites).
> 
> Your not setting and maintaining white and black points in the photos. You're also pushing too hard with the processing -- the lake wasn't blue and your attempt to make it blue shows. Another guy who hangs out here, Sparky, says; "if it's obvious you did it then you over did it." Sparky's right.
> 
> View attachment 130247
> You took the photo with the camera set to auto white balance. AWB usually gets you in the ballpark but never does get the ball to home plate. Your camera's AWB was off a little to the blue/cyan direction. If you load that XMP file you'll see I set temp to 5950 and tint to +8.
> 
> The biggest difference you see between the two files is the contrast difference. My version has blacker blacks and whiter whites and that shows throughout the photo. Look right across the lake at the shadows cast by the trees and notice how they're darker in my version. Compare the sky at the horizon and my version is much lighter. I darkened the sky too (used a gradient) but I also made sure the photo didn't lose it's white point.
> 
> Set white and black periodically as you work -- set them and reset them. Hold the option/alt key down and click on the white slider. The screen turns black. Move the slider to the right until color shows. Determine that the color showing is diffuse highlights (not reflections) and then move the slider just until the color is gone and stop: white point. Then the same with black. This time the screen turns white. Move the slider until you see just the beginning of black appear. This is different than white. You want to reach black so the goal is to find the spot where black just starts to show up and stop. Make other processing changes then reset the white and black points. Last thing you do when the photo is finished: recheck the white and black points.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just got through viewing it in lightroom and it looks so much better.  The one I did looks like lightroom threw up on it lol.  Yours looks so natural and clean.  Setting the white and black points made the image so much more dynamic and other than my abuse of the saturation slider, I think that is what was making my images so flat (lack of dynamic range.) And yes I have been in the habit of leaving the WB in auto.  I will experiment with that next time I am out.  After this, I will be resetting a lot of my images and re-editing them. I will post one or two to here when I finish them.  I can't thank you enough for this information.  I was not expecting it and have learned so much.  I hope that when I become a lot more experienced, I can somehow return the favor. Again Thank You!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saving raw files so white balance is easy.
> 
> View attachment 130250
> 
> The card is a piece of white Styrofoam cut from a food tray. Any white Styrofoam will do: coffee cup, take-out container, etc. Styrofoam is spectrally neutral so that the color of the light is not changed by the card. Therefore we can measure the color of the light by measuring the card. Card is free. Just take a snapshot of it before or after you take photos. No need for another card shot until the light changes. In LR open the photo of the card and use the WB eyedropper to read the card. Write down or remember the temp and tint values. Open the photo you want to process taken in the same light. Type in temp and tint values.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


That is genius! That would take any guesswork out of it and I was thinking I'd be trying to dial in WB on the spot every time or something like that but that way is way more easy and convenient!!  I should have some white styrofoam kicking about here somewhere to throw in my kit bag. Thank you for yet another piece of fantastic advice!!


----------



## The_Traveler

You got really excellent advice from Tim Tucker and Ysarex but, in your excitement at making things looks better, don't forget what Derrel said.
Don't become obsessed with the technical issues of color and lose sight of the most important issue to the viewer - pictures are content.

Boring, unexciting, emotionless stuff, no matter how pretty, eventually becomes reduced in memory to just 'stuff'.
Compose and frame for interest, edit to make it better and more enjoyable.

(Also note that you got great response because you had a question that people could respond to and find a way into what you were thinking when you posted.)


----------



## thereyougo!

I agree.  You are using critique section for what it is meant to be and asking questions that are pertinent and taking things on board.  The best thing is that others also get to learn from the excellent guidance being given. 

All credit to you!


----------



## Peeb

When I posted a similar image early on, I was told that my images lacked a subject. Without careful composition, a landscape image can come off like just a random shot out the car window, rather than telling a story with the image- which is so much more compelling.


----------



## Peeb

OK- it got off the rails a bit, but here was my thread.  

What does this shot need?


----------



## The_Traveler

Peeb said:


> OK- it got off the rails a bit, but here was my thread.
> 
> What does this shot need?



If you don't know exactly what you were looking at and why you thought was interesting and how it made you feel - you won't get any of that in the photo.


----------



## HeidiMartinez

After all of the wonderful advice and input from everyone here, especially with the incredibly in depth post processing advice from Ysarex, I went and re-edited some of those images to something I was so much more happy with.  I finally feel like the images are showing what I wanted from them.  The biggest struggle was dealing with middle of the day light but I used the contrasting shadows and highlights to make the image pop.  The biggest thing I learned here was creating more dynamic with setting my white and black points in Lightroom (thanks to Ysarex) and also some split toning in some which I picked up from a youtube video.  I also cloned out some distracting things in Photoshop which was a lot of fun.  I did decide to keep the lake blue in one of the images as although it wasn't originally, I like the way it feels to me.  So, here are the updated pics.  Let me know what you all think of where I went with them and if anyone has any input I would love to hear it.  And again, Thank You all so so much for all of the help!!! 

1


 

2



3


----------

