|
For better or worse I edit most of my landscapes pretty heavily. However I usually know what I'm going to do with a shot before I take it. Here's some before and after shots.          
benisntfunny fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 21, 2009 |
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
The Wormy Guy posted:Cool, I'm no expert by any means but I like em. Care to quickly describe what you generally do to each image? I'm assuming you shoot in RAW and process it from there? Sure. I've already been called out on my gradient filter approach. I abuse it like crazy from Lightroom. But I'll talk to each one step by step... yes they're all raw originally. The first is mostly just a gradient filter in Lightroom. I came across this by accident actually when I put the contrast of the whole photo way down and realized in that bright crappy sky had clouds and sun beams that actually existed. Because I was way too lazy I did do a gradient rather than brush filter to bring out the sky. After, I edited the cliffs with lucisart in Photoshop to pop them a little and finished the rest in Lightroom (Desaturated the water). I have another version where I've removed the people from the Cliff but they're so small it's almost worth keeping them in because the detail is impressive. The second is sadly tone mapped. I say sadly because I think it's far overused. I actually hate this photo but people seem to comment nice on it. I also cleaned up the ice a little bit to make it less dirty. It's still dirty. The third was all photoshop. All LucisArt and all section by section. Nothing special here just apply the filter to one section and mask out the rest. The 4th, the city is 95% lightroom modifications but I did take it into photoshop to remove some of the glow from the building lights I found distracting after being put into mostly B&W The final is a mix of everything above. It's tone mapped, it has gradient filters from Lightroom, LucisArt and selective brightening within Photoshop. I have noticed that if I try to edit my photos outside of RAW it's not as nice. Especially in the areas of tone mapping and contrast adjustment. I try my hardest to mix up the plugins I use too and techniques. I don't want my pictures to all have the same look to them. I see a lot of photographers who take the same approach to everything. Hey, if it works go for it I suppose though. Having a nice camera also gives a lot more room to alter photos without trashing them. Going from XT to 5D was a giant jump, then 5D to MKII made a pretty significant difference as well. Especially in terms of noise created because of editing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 21:57
|
|
|
Fbi2thegrave posted:I'm fairly intrigued. Are these HDRs or are you using RAWs? I'm looking at the pre picture and generally I can see how the post picture can get certain colors or enhance certain characterestics, but I can't seem to do that in comparing your pictures. Like for example, in the last one, that firebolt looking thing is awesome, but I can't possibly see how that came from the original pic. No HDR, I haven't done an HDR shot in years. I tried a few back in the day but it's so ugly I can't even look at it. Every once in awhile I'll tone map a shot using photomatix (#2 is tone mapped) but for the most part just stick to levels, color balance, saturation, etc.. (basic things) for most shots. I'm pretty sure the sky in the 4th one is the result of pumping up the contrast and lowering brightness for the sky with some saturation added. Well I'm not pretty sure, I'm exactly sure. Someone had commented that my photos look fake and that I wasn't doing justice to them by applying such intense editing. My thoughts on this are that landscapes are boring, especially when shooting scenes that everyone has done a million times over. If I'm going to shoot something, like that Tomb in Ireland, or the cliffs or Moher and actually show someone.. i want it to look different. I'm not at all concerned with the realness of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2009 04:36
|
|