DSLRUsers.com

I'm very new to PP. Up until very recently it was rawshooter, move the bars for exposure, contrast and saturations then covert to jpeg. Been starting to get into using photoshop a bit, but mostly cleaning up dust bunnies and the like. This is the first time I've properly tinkered with anything using layers, though it's basic. Thought I'd thow it up here to see what people think.

Here is the out of cam image, no corrections at all. Its flat, the sky is washed out and the tree is too dark. There is also a blob in the middle of the paddock and on the tree at the second branch up on the right, these are from a dirty lens I think. Lesson learned, but let's just ignore them for the purpose of this exercise.


The adjusted shot. I altered exposure a tad before importing to photoshop. Then tweaked the curves in one layer, added some brightness in another layer as well. Tinkered with some dodging/burning in the clouds but didn't get anything nice so abandoned it. I'm happy with the improvement, though the aforementioned blobs preclude it from being anything more than a technical study.



Any suggestions or comments on what I've done are welcome.

something to aspire to !


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613


the comments said only burning / dodging

is it just me, or is there some nasty CA (purple fringing) going on in those shots????

jamesw wrote:is it just me, or is there some nasty CA (purple fringing) going on in those shots????

Could be actually. It's not a good shot, I'm mostly just interested in the alterations and whether they have improved it at all.

TTT wrote:something to aspire to !


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613

WOW!

dawesy
You've done a great job with the sky and now you need to do more to the landscape. It's still a tad flat and dull.

Overall I prefer the first one, but the clouds in the second are great. As Matt says, the rest of the second is flat and needs to be enhanced.

I agree with Matt and ATJ about the landscape - the clouds in the second are great but distant hills now seem to be covered in some sort of fog.

Having said that, I am also impressed as photoshop layers are something I still need to master

Cheers,
Elena

hope you don't mind i had a quick play



zsolt

zeddy wrote:hope you don't mind i had a quick play

zsolt

Don't mind as this thread is about the PP, but the question remains what did you do?

If seems a tad fluro to me, but I certainly like the direction, even if this will never be a keeper.

I don't like the colour of the grass in Zsolt's version. The colour of the grass in the original and first PP attempt looks good, it just needs to have a boost of contrast.

ATJ wrote:I don't like the colour of the grass in Zsolt's version. The colour of the grass in the original and first PP attempt looks good, it just needs to have a boost of contrast.

Another version:


Looking a lot better. Thanks for the advice guys, and has certainly helped me with getting the hang of some of these PS tools.

Cheers.

TTT wrote:something to aspire to !


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613


the comments said only burning / dodging

that may well be some of the best PP i have ever seen. absolutely unbelievable.

Wow. I'm still figuring out how to use my dslr, so these pp examples are incredible to me. It's amazing what you can do with Photoshop (or something similar).

Rooz wrote:

TTT wrote:something to aspire to !


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613


the comments said only burning / dodging

that may well be some of the best PP i have ever seen. absolutely unbelievable.

I agree - this person not only has a superb photographic capability but lives in a beautiful area that has that tropical atmosphere that enhances the photos into classics

TTT wrote:something to aspire to !


http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613


the comments said only burning / dodging

Had a look through there. While they are great photo's, I can't see any useful details about the processing involved. In fact a number are tagged not manipulated. Am I missing something?

dawesy wrote:I can't see any useful details about the processing involved. In fact a number are tagged not manipulated. Am I missing something?

Neither can I.

And some of them are examples of digital art rather than photos, though I'm sure they began as photos in some form... they've certainly had a lot more done than just dodging and burning.

Some of them are pretty cool regardless.

This one is awesome: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5768569

macka wrote:This one is awesome: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5768569

It is, but I'm not sure of the relevance of

Canon EOS Rebel XT

under it.

ATJ wrote:

macka wrote:This one is awesome: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5768569

It is, but I'm not sure of the relevance of

Canon EOS Rebel XT

under it.

Not sure.. he claims he "merged some photos" to achieve this, but that doesn't tell us much. Still, I love it. So surreal. Dali-esque...

macka wrote:

dawesy wrote:I can't see any useful details about the processing involved. In fact a number are tagged not manipulated. Am I missing something?

Neither can I.

And some of them are examples of digital art rather than photos, though I'm sure they began as photos in some form... they've certainly had a lot more done than just dodging and burning.

Some of them are pretty cool regardless.

This one is awesome: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5768569

Fair enough, as long as it's not just me. Thought I might be missing something useful.

Not a comment on post prcessing, but think a lower viewpoint may have kept the overhead trees in the "sky" and framed the hills a little better. I've only just switched to digital and love the instant feedback esp re framing and to a lesser extent exposure (this thread is an example of post processing adjusting exposure instead of using graduated filters)
Robert