# From good to outstanding.



## GnipGnop (Mar 28, 2012)

What are some techniques to edit landscapes to really make them pop. I feel I have a good picture to work with, but I want to make something really special here. I've been researching techniques and most seem to center on things I'm already knowledgeable on. I'm hoping that posting here will help me mentally change tracks and provide some more insight into different or varied post-processing techniques than the ones I currently use.

So here is the photo:



 (high res if you need it to show me something)

So what can be done in your eyes to give this photo that extra little bit to make it outstanding. I should note, that I'm not saying my photo is objectively amazing or incredible. Rather, I'm saying the I feel it's a solid base for me to learn some techniques to apply to this and other photos down the road. I'm looking for post-processing advice and tips here, not shooting (i.e. use a smaller aperture etc).

My views on the photo are that the lighting compliments the composition well. The foreground is present to give perspective, but not distracting. The lighting leads the eye to the right of the picture and the darkness down to the right and center. 

I know there are weaknesses in the photo, but I'm not sure which ones I should address. Should I sharpen more, or less? Should I unsharp in this circumstance? Should I bring out some more details in the trees and shadows, or darken and create silhouettes? 

I'm particularly unhappy about the sky, It's dull and drab to me. What would you suggest I do? Create a composition and replace the sky with a more dramatic and fitting horizon?


What do you think could help me bring out the most of what I have to work with here? If you think it's **** and a waste of my time, then say that as well! I can take the criticism.

I really am just looking to jog my mind and see what other people are doing. 

Thanks all.

Using Lightroom 3.5 and Photoshop CS5 for the record. Experienced with both so don't be afraid to give me technical advice. It's what I'm after.


----------



## fokker (Mar 28, 2012)

If you have the raw file, you could try creating two edited tiff files from the original, one with the sky darkened and with a warm white balance and high contrast to bring out cloud detail and sky colour, ie a dramatic sky. The second would be brighter for the benefit of the foreground. Then in PS merge the two photos to get a nice bright foreground with a dramatic sky.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 28, 2012)

Can I ask why you didn't use either G-NDs or shoot for an HDR?


----------



## davidewing (Mar 29, 2012)

A stunning image I think you are shooting at the right time of day to capture this image.  I really like your use of colour.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't currently own any G-NDs. I suppose HDR is an option, but I didn't have my tripod with me at the time. I could tone map this I suppose, but I'm looking for more technical editing advice than simply "try hdr". 

Thanks for the comments davidewing. I appreciate it but it's not really what I'm looking for in this thread. 

I'm looking for more detailed tips you might use or know of to make pictures pop.
I have used a very gentle sharpening effect on most of the photo where you copy and reverse the image to a negative. Then you select vivid light. Then, surface blur to about 27 for both parameters. Then copy the layer so that you can change the layer blend mode. Change it to overlay. Change opacity and erase parts you don't want to include with a soft eraser. Flatten. Copy layer and unsharp mask. Erase and change opacity to your liking. 

That is on top of the cropping and Lightroom editing already performed. 

I'm looking for processes like the above that you follow to get great results. Any one know of any?


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 30, 2012)

Well I tried my best, despite having to filter though all the tips and advice given (sarcasm).
 Here it is, as well as the original if anyone is interested. Cheers





Sunshine by Gn!pGnop, on Flickr

Annnnd the original, because sometimes it's interesting to see what you start with.






It's not an HDR or tone mapped image by the way. Shot at 80 iso, and the K5 sensor is amaze at dynamic range. More than a 5d MKii!


----------



## APHPHOTO (Mar 30, 2012)

Wow quite a difference.


----------



## Desi (Mar 30, 2012)

Quite inspirational to see what you did with the original image.  It is always amazing to me to see what other people can pull out of an image using the vision already in their mind.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 30, 2012)

Here's a build on your edit:


----------



## Natalie (Mar 30, 2012)

Not a fan of the fake sun. :\ If the sun was visible, the snow right in front of the camera (bottom left corner) would be illuminated. Considering the pre-edited version, I think the OP's edit is excellent.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 30, 2012)

Photoshop is not a substitute for a disappointing forecast.


----------



## KmH (Mar 31, 2012)

The main issue with the edited photo is the dark foreground.

If Lightroom is all you have to use for editing you're severely limited by the lack of selection tools, blending modes, layers, and masking options.

You could try using Lightroom's Adjustment brush to add some exposure to the foreground. The hard part will be following the line of the mountains against the sky.

With CS5 one can accurately select only the mountains so edits done to them don't bleed over into the sky since the sky would not be part of the selection.


----------



## KmH (Mar 31, 2012)

Natalie said:


> Not a fan of the fake sun. :\ If the sun was visible, the snow right in front of the camera (bottom left corner) would be illuminated. Considering the pre-edited version, I think the OP's edit is excellent.



Like this?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> The main issue with the edited photo is the dark foreground.
> 
> If Lightroom is all you have to use for editing you're severely limited by the lack of selection tools, blending modes, layers, and masking options.
> 
> ...



I agree.. it is a bit dark! The white snow is gray!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Not a fan of the fake sun. :\ If the sun was visible, the snow right in front of the camera (bottom left corner) would be illuminated. Considering the pre-edited version, I think the OP's edit is excellent.
> ...



Nice edit!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I took a quick shot at it.. totally different take. It was a quickie.. so the blending isn't perfect... 

View attachment 5302


----------



## Mygixxer (Mar 31, 2012)

Good grief...i wish I knew how to use Photoshop or other like programs to accomplish what several of you have done here. KMH and rotanimod, LOVE what you did with the foreground and sun. GnipGnop, I know my comment here doesn't add to any advice or tips, but I love what you were able to do with the original shot to create this current photo that you are wanting advice on. I dont know if I'm breaking protocal here, but how do you take your original photo and make it looks so clear? I'm sure anyone who knows these programs is already familiar but I am not educated at all on processing and would really like to know.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 31, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The main issue with the edited photo is the dark foreground.
> ...



I agree with you that the dark foreground is a bit of problem. I wasn't sure If I should keep it somewhat dark to lend to the setting sun feel I was developing, or if I should lighten it. I felt if I lightened it too much it would take away from the natural look of the lighting. 

KMH did a great job inserting the sun into the photo, but I feel that the way the light is hitting some of the mountains and inside the valleys, it looks a bit unnatural. Not that KMH didn't do a good job, but just the lighting is hitting some unnatural spots.

I should also add that I have lightroom, as well as Creative Suite 5. I've been using Adobe products since 2001. I'm no expert, but I know my way around them a little bit. I'm also a graphic designer by trade, which is why I made the topic looking for some more detailed advice in either technique or style. I really appreciate the different edits that are popping up here now!




Sw1tchFX said:


> Photoshop is not a substitute for a disappointing forecast.



I would humbly disagree with you on this one. I appreciate the art of attempting to capture landscapes exactly as they are, but I believe objectivity is impossible. Why not create what the mind's eye sees, since that is all we have? Not arguing with you, but just pointing out my different point of view. Thank you for pointing out the general crappiness of the weather in my shot though! I am doing my best to recreate what I saw (which the camera settings including white balance and exposure, didn't accurately record when I shot it, thus the editing).


CGipson, I think you handled the foreground really well in your pink sky edit. You also made the sky a lot more interesting to me with, especially since that was one aspect of the photo I has having trouble with editing. What I'm a bit undecided about is the colour on the mid-mountains. Seems to be some blues and bright pinks that look a bit off. But you did say it was a quick edit. 

What was your process for the lightening. Dodging? Selection and brightening/exposure? It does certainly bring me into the picture a bit more. Very different feel.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 31, 2012)

GnipGnop said:


> CGipson, I think you handled the foreground really well in your pink sky edit. You also made the sky a lot more interesting to me with, especially since that was one aspect of the photo I has having trouble with editing. What I'm a bit undecided about is the colour on the mid-mountains. Seems to be some blues and bright pinks that look a bit off. But you did say it was a quick edit.
> 
> What was your process for the lightening. Dodging? Selection and brightening/exposure? It does certainly bring me into the picture a bit more. Very different feel.



I used the quick select tool to pull the image into a couple of different layers...  did a quick global adjust on the bottom part to get the snow up to what I perceived as close to correct, and increased contrast a bit. Just did a bit darker with a hue change and and saturation on the sky. Then brought them back together. The quick select actually grabbed part of the mountain too.. and I compensated.. but not enough. That is why you see some off colors in snow / mountains. It was a quickie... and this is just how "I" saw it! lol! Nice shot, though!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> The main issue with the edited photo is the dark foreground.
> 
> If Lightroom is all you have to use for editing you're severely limited by the lack of selection tools, blending modes, layers, and masking options.
> 
> ...



You're right, I didn't do a lot with the lighting, which I should have. I pulled some different colors with curves in the sky and worked in the sun.  



KmH said:


> Natalie said:
> 
> 
> > Not a fan of the fake sun. :\ If the sun was visible, the snow right in front of the camera (bottom left corner) would be illuminated. Considering the pre-edited version, I think the OP's edit is excellent.
> ...



Hmm, it really looks unnatural. It would take a bit off effort and masking to get the lighting right.



GnipGnop said:


> I agree with you that the dark foreground is a bit of problem. I wasn't sure If I should keep it somewhat dark to lend to the setting sun feel I was developing, or if I should lighten it. I felt if I lightened it too much it would take away from the natural look of the lighting.
> 
> KMH did a great job inserting the sun into the photo, but I feel that the way the light is hitting some of the mountains and inside the valleys, it looks a bit unnatural. Not that KMH didn't do a good job, but just the lighting is hitting some unnatural spots.



I inserted the sun, he just edited my render 

I still have the .PSD, maybe if I have time I will work on the lighting.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 31, 2012)

Mygixxer said:


> I dont know if I'm breaking protocal here, but how do you take your original photo and make it looks so clear? I'm sure anyone who knows these programs is already familiar but I am not educated at all on processing and would really like to know.



No tip-toeing around me. I'm no professional, but even if I was I would readily tell people techniques. I'll be glad to share with you what I did here.

In Lightroom, there was the obvious cropping to make a stronger composition taking into account the lighting, mountainscape, foreground retention (for scale) and sky.

I then warmed the white balance to my liking. Adjusted the exposure, brightness just enough to get it to where I want. Also adjusted the contrast, small small bump in saturation if any, didn't touch the fill light at all. Because of the haze, I yanked the recovery over to about 75/80. It seemed to help in conjunction with the some help from the clarity and contrast sliders. A little help from vibrance as well.

I then gave it a small S curve by bringing up the highlights and lights and sliding down the darks and shadows. I brought down the saturation of blues and aquas to take away the tinge of blue in the snow to make it more natural looking to my eye. Even though this made the snow grey, I still preferred it to the blue looking snow. It also made the trees darker which is what I wanted. Like a detailed silhouette if that makes sense. I should say that after each adjustment I would make sure it all is working. Sometimes I'd adjust the highlights and go back and take away some vibrance as an example. Nothing is set in stone. 

I then bring up sharpening so about 25-30, bring up the radius to about 1, detail to 25,  and add a bit of masking. Noise reduction to maybe about 33 or so? And then I enabled profile corrections on the lens , which corrected the distortion and vignetting that my 18-55 pentax kit lens produces, which isn't much to be honest. THere wasn't much chromatic abberation to correct so from here, i went over all my adjustments again and exported as a .tiff, 2500 long side and opened it in photoshop.

In photoshop, I open and create a new layer. On the new layer, I change blend mode to vivid light and hit command-i (on a mac) and invert the colours. I then go to filter>blur>surface blur and punch in about 30-30 for each amount and hit ok. Then, when it's done, on that weird looking layer I hit Shift+option+command+E all at the same time. This copies the layer and makes it possible for me to change the layer blending mode on it. I delete the previous layer, and change the new layer to the Overlay blending mode.

I then adjust the opacity and fade to my liking, usually around 10-35%. Then I take a really soft edged eraser and start erasing parts of the picture I'm unhappy with. For that entire process, I'll only look at one part of the picture. For example, I'll focus on the snowy mountains where the light hits, and erase the sky and foreground. Once happy. I flatten and repeat the process for the sky, and erase the parts I'm unhappy with. Repeat for the foreground. 

Finally, I copy the flattened image, run unsharp and see if I like the results. In this case, I did. Only to about 15% layer opacity and also erased parts of the unsharp layer that I felt were too sharpened.

And finally finished. It sounds like a lot of work (I guess it is), but I'm also teaching myself the process, and trying to learn photo re-touching for magazine on my own time, so the more I dig into the programs the better. This certainly isn't what I always do. Sometimes I just sharpen a bit and I'm on my way. This shot needed a lot of work, and it was pretty rewarding. I knew there was potential I couldn't personally bring out, so I also decided to post on here and see what other people could help me with. If there's anything you don't understand or I did a crappy job of explaining, let me know.

Whew. That's that.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 31, 2012)

[/QUOTE]

I inserted the sun, he just edited my render 

I still have the .PSD, maybe if I have time I will work on the lighting.[/QUOTE]

Ahh my bad. I lost track of who did who.


----------



## KmH (Mar 31, 2012)

I used ACR (Camera Raw/Lightroom) to add a quick Gradient to the bottom the Rotanimod's added Sun.

In all honesty, the original shot is a recycle bin candidate, not a 'good' shot to spend time trying to edit into an 'outstanding' image it can never be.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 31, 2012)

KmH said:


> I used ACR (Camera Raw/Lightroom) to add a quick Gradient to the bottom the Rotanimod's added Sun.
> 
> In all honesty, the original shot is a recycle bin candidate, not a 'good' shot to spend time trying to edit into an 'outstanding' image it can never be.



I partly agree with you. I was on a flight and I accidentally cropped the image as I was going through and deleting, and it sort of worked. So I went and changed the white balance and it just sort of came alive in front of me. So I kept going.


----------



## GnipGnop (Mar 31, 2012)

I don't understand why this was moved? I was asking for intermediate to advanced help, and posted the photo I wanted help on? My intent wasn't to simply post my work, but to learn...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 31, 2012)

Here's a little fine tuning:

First edit (from earlier and friend):






new edit:


----------



## Mygixxer (Mar 31, 2012)

I dont like the new edit as much. personally I like KmH version most. I think the main reason i like his is the shade in the middle section which would be caused from the middle peak according to where the sun is.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 1, 2012)

GnipGnop said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Photoshop is not a substitute for a disappointing forecast.
> ...




That's a shame. You've got to appreciate everyone's efforts of course, but at the end of the day it' all just putting lipstick on a pig. For spectacular photographs, you need spectacular material.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 1, 2012)

And how much time in front of the computer did you spend on those?


----------



## Forkie (Apr 2, 2012)

You could try a Dragan style effect.

Try this work flow,

From Adobe Bridge open the Image in Camera Raw (making no changes) hold shift then click "Open Object".

Once in PS, right-click the layer and duplicate the Smart Object (not the layer) you just opened, then double click the duplicate.  This will re-open Camera Raw.  Slide the Clarity slider to the max and adjust contrast, fill light, etc., to your liking, then desaturate it completely.  

Click "Ok" to get back to PS and blend the two layers using the "Luminosity" option in the drop down menu above the layer list - then adjust that layer's opacity to your liking and then continue doing whatever else you want to do to it.

I find this method can give landscapes a real "Pop" and can dramatise dull, drab skies.



Admittedly, I didn't spend a great deal of time on this one, but it was just as a quick example.

I'm not really keen on the fake sun people are adding.  I think it distracts all attention from the mountains themselves.


----------

