|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 6, 2012 0:39:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Jan 6, 2012 14:26:51 GMT
Chris, This is not working for me. It's not a case of “I don't like it”. That is not good enough.
The image gets off to a poor start because the sky is light and plain (necessarily so) So the trees are trying to provide sky interest – but they can't because they are vertically orientated – unlike clouds. So the plain light top right corner is fighting the almost black bottom left corner. The river and the reflections are trying to mediate this battle but are not strong enough to boss the situation – they are too bitty to do the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 6, 2012 15:49:22 GMT
Honestly, I was far more interested in achieving a good tonal balance with much stronger blacks than making a pretty scene...one of the problems I have where I live is the lack of tonal contrast in color. Running a histogram on most of the predominate colors, I find them all to fall in about the same range. I can color pick a red or green or blue and each hit about the same peaks and flats.
So, my challenge is to find a way to manipulate each channel to 'cheat" the image into showing what I want. In most cases, I have to rely on a strong B&W output to get there when my backdrop is predominately green.
I agree with your analysis and wonder if I can't go in and do a gradient mask on the sky...hmmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 6, 2012 16:11:00 GMT
Hmmmmmmmmm, con't.  |
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Jan 6, 2012 16:16:47 GMT
Well Chris, your explanation was much as I thought – but could not articulate. Message to self – don't try to force it – just consider myself fortunate to live where I do.
Silly thought – if the sky is blue can you back off the blue to make it dark. Then mask the top so that you can lighten the green / yellow in the trees for contrast?
#2 is defo better!
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 15:33:07 GMT
do you use the raw b&w convert layer? you can control the colour channels luminosity and saturation and should stop the tops of your trees going black, which isn't helping, i wouldn't mind seeing the colour version so i can have a go at it
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 8, 2012 17:16:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 17:44:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 17:44:56 GMT
i can email you the psd file with the layers still intact if your interested
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 8, 2012 21:37:51 GMT
Got the file and added a SEP layer between the original file and the BW conversion layer... I think it gives a bit more depth and detail. What do you think?  |
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 21:41:37 GMT
What does SEP stand for?
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 21:44:04 GMT
It looks like the exposure has been increased, I didn't spend hours on it, normally I come back to a pic the next day, I find that helps a lot, it does look better but make sure the blown out bits and a lot worse now though
|
|
|
|
Post by The Wirefox on Jan 8, 2012 22:46:17 GMT
Silver Efex Pro..I think
|
|
|
|
Post by cannockwolf on Jan 8, 2012 22:51:30 GMT
Ahhh ok ta! So it is just heavier contrat then
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Jan 8, 2012 23:42:38 GMT
Actually, I built a layer mask into the SEP layer and tried to pull that detail back out...could be a monitor difference. I will look at it again. I do tend a bit more toward more than less contrast. Maybe it is a kickback to Tri-X film days.
|
|
