|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 13:48:42 GMT
I always find using paths, hedges, etc. as lead-in lines helpful in making images like this have a more pleasing aesthetic. Yes indeed, I tend to overdo "lines' if anything, especially in National Trust gardens, but they do make a strong picture. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 13:53:37 GMT
I know this picture is "wrong" - what I see sitting on the bench near the pond is some delicate yellow flowers between me and the water. DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
I'm intrigued, Pete. Are you saying that the delicate yellow flowers aren't appearing delicate enough - or am I on the wrong track?
It's more that I can't express myself properly  - the picture doesn't reflect what I think I saw (I think). Could be that I'm just getting old. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 14:02:59 GMT
If you are wanting to highlight "delicate" I'd start with lowering the contrast and saturation. Are you applying a colour preset (e.g. 'vivid'/'natural'/'landscape' etc.)? I do tend to do this. Recently, in the context of the images in this thread, I've been knocking the contrast and saturation right back to start with and then trying to put it back because it is too easy to make everything look flat. Using Fuji I start with the fairly "natural" preset of 'Astia' - it is fairly gentle - but all of these posted have assigned "Velvia" which is quite strongly saturated on greens especially. Maybe I've overdone it, easy enough to test. Again could be my photochromic glasses exaggerating contrast when I'm out in the sun and so I'm trying to recover something unnatural. I know they affect yellow. Gorse flowers really change colour from bright yellow to deep gold - I should have thought of this before starting the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 14:09:36 GMT
If you are wanting to highlight "delicate" I'd start with lowering the contrast and saturation. That was exactly the direction that I was thinking. A 'quick-and-dirty' tweak (peterob , I hope you don't object):
I don't mind at all - it is appraisal and thank you. Yes, maybe I'm overdoing things chasing a false memory of the scene. Food for thought. Thank you for spending time on it. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 14:16:28 GMT
I can't remember what I saw when I took the photograph either (no visuals for a start) so I don't try. I focus on creating an image I like and if it's something or nothing like the original scene doesn't particularly bother me. It's not like I"m shooting for a natural history magazine. That is a comfort I lack your creative streak so I'm trying to reproduce something I can't remember very well - maybe that makes the process a bit futile! At least I'm not going up the wall about it. I don't dislike the results enough to delete them all (or I wouldn't have started this thread) but something's missing and I don't know what. I'm happy that I'm hearing that it doesn't matter too much. Thanks Kath. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 14, 2023 16:27:24 GMT
That was exactly the direction that I was thinking. A 'quick-and-dirty' tweak (peterob , I hope you don't object):
I don't mind at all - it is appraisal and thank you. Yes, maybe I'm overdoing things chasing a false memory of the scene. Food for thought. Thank you for spending time on it. OK - I revisited the edit taking the comments in mind and I can get it a bit closer to what I think I saw. I put them together for comparison purposes. New processing taking comments from Peter and Zou into account  DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr Original result from processing the batch  DSCF3374.jpg by Pete, on Flickr Main differences in new processing. 'Astia' rather than 'Velvia' as base colour profile. Lower contrast. Selective edit on yellow hue/luminance to make more "yellow" and "brighter", exposure of out-of-focus elements reduced a bit (LR select subject, invert, decrease exposure). Noticed - a lot of reflection from leaves of the water lilies on the pond so there are specular highlights in the middle ground. The duckweed on the pond has a lot of "yellow" in it so there is not a clean colour contrast between the flowers and the pond. Maybe a polariser would have helped. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 14, 2023 17:48:15 GMT
OK - I revisited the edit taking the comments in mind and I can get it a bit closer to what I think I saw. I put them together for comparison purposes. New processing taking comments from Peter and Zou into account
I think that's a win, Pete! In addition to the overall reduction in saturation, you've now got a nice bit of recession in the revised version, which contributes to a greater realism.
|
|
|
|
Post by dans on Jun 15, 2023 13:29:33 GMT
I think garden photography can be pretty challenging. I always go for close ups as I haven't had much luck getting g a wider shot to look very good. I think a cloudy day helps a bit so there are no dappled shadows?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 16, 2023 15:07:21 GMT
OK - I revisited the edit taking the comments in mind and I can get it a bit closer to what I think I saw. I put them together for comparison purposes. New processing taking comments from Peter and Zou into account
I think that's a win, Pete! In addition to the overall reduction in saturation, you've now got a nice bit of recession in the revised version, which contributes to a greater realism.
Nah, went back today and the true colour is much closer to the original [rubbish] photo - the re-edit is just awful. May or may not post an update depending on what today's efforts look like. Edit (18:44) Closer - some movement due to wind so not sharp. Tried a joiner to get the original framing with longer focal length but it didn't really work.  DSCF3391.jpg by Pete, on Flickr Edit 18:50 - adding the joiner. It didn't like the movement in the subject and looks horrible at full scale (3 images joined)  DSCF3391-Pano.jpg by Pete, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jun 16, 2023 16:08:21 GMT
You have to remember that colour is entirely subjective - if we all stood in the same place at the same time we'd each see the 'true' colours differently. Mostly in similar ways, but not always.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 16, 2023 16:47:37 GMT
Nah, went back today and the true colour is much closer to the original [rubbish] photo - the re-edit is just awful. May or may not post an update depending on what today's efforts look like.
I'm still puzzled as to your objective, Pete. Are you trying to get total accuracy with the original scene, or are you trying to get a picture which you like to view? (or are these two things the same?)
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Jun 16, 2023 17:13:40 GMT
Nah, went back today and the true colour is much closer to the original [rubbish] photo - the re-edit is just awful. May or may not post an update depending on what today's efforts look like.
I'm still puzzled as to your objective, Pete. Are you trying to get total accuracy with the original scene, or are you trying to get a picture which you like to view? (or are these two things the same?)
Same really. This was a bad example to use. I should have kept quiet - I managed nearly 20 years of not seeking appraisal on AP Forum and here. |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Jun 16, 2023 17:23:09 GMT
I should have kept quiet - I managed nearly 20 years of not seeking appraisal on AP Forum and here.
I don't think that's right Pete [bold highlight]. It was an interesting discussion - even if we didn't resolve anything!
|
|
- the picture doesn't reflect what I think I saw (I think). Could be that I'm just getting old.
