John Crosley, May 31, 2007; 06:01 A.M.
Stefano
This is a fine photo that could be 'GREAT'.
It just needs a little better workup, I think.
You didn't probably have or use a polarizing filter; I don't even own one.
Try underexposing the results in Photoshop. Photoshop has a series of ways to do that.
Try going image - adjustments - exposure and just reduce the exposure and see if there's any magic happening to any part of the colors.
If there is, there are possibilities.
Next, try the shadow/highlight filter, selectively darkening the bright points and working on the shadows, 'to taste' if you feel it is right. (I dislike using 'curves' because though they work fine, they are not replicable, and hence if you try to 'do it again' you cannot do that, exactly, unless somehow you can 'save' a curve profile -- a difficult task I have not mastered. I NEVER use curves for that reason when shadow/highlight filter is available to me.
Note that in shadow/highlight filter, there is some discoloration when you move the highlight selector to suppress some highlights (to bring out detail in the clouds as I think you should) and therefore if you move to the expanded version of that filter (check the box), you'll be presented with a color correction slider. Experiment with it, if you have not already, and do simple adjustments.
This saves all that tedious work of 'selecting' various portions of your fine work, then manipulating the exposures on each, one by one.
And you can change the value of the brightness onset for both shadow and highlight as you work to avoid unwanted effects, making the tool really versatile.
There are other ways, such as 'levels' but it is too pedestrian, with only a couple of changes available before you're out of options, whereas shadow/highlight has multiple, overlapping options. Be sure to set the shadow slider nearly to its leftmost setting, as it defaults to a very bright and usually unusable setting which you would not want for this photo (that suggests it was developed for deep shadows, but it works well for landscapes such as this.)
The idea is that your sky is a little washed out and though dramatic, it is too bright to reveal detail, and the detail would be very helpful to boosting this photo to the great or near great landscape level. It's nicely exposed, so you should have no trouble manipulating the light levels.
This may be the way it looked to your eye, but remember your eye and brain also are always scanning and making Photoshop-like adjustments, so there really is no 'natural look' no matter how this resembles what you think you saw. It may be accurate to your memory, but it can be improved, I think, and remember, the eye, as it scans a scene, such as this, has the iris constantly opening and closing as it moves from highlight to shadow to make adjustments and a photo is a compromise that cannot do that.
You have to do that for the viewer and every photo is a compromise; every photograph is an interpretation; there is no 'true color' only an approximation, and it can be beautiful, don't be hung up on what was 'natural' since your eye can't see 'natural' as it scans a scene as large as this (and constantly changes its own 'settings'.
I hope this is helpful.
I'd be appreciate if you work this over, if you'd e-mail me to let me know where to find a worked up version, either now or in the far future.
Best wishes (it's a nice work or I wouldn't have taken the time or gone to the specificity.)
(not rated)
John (Crosley)
Stefano
This is a fine photo that could be 'GREAT'.
It just needs a little better workup, I think.
You didn't probably have or use a polarizing filter; I don't even own one.
Try underexposing the results in Photoshop. Photoshop has a series of ways to do that.
Try going image - adjustments - exposure and just reduce the exposure and see if there's any magic happening to any part of the colors.
If there is, there are possibilities.
Next, try the shadow/highlight filter, selectively darkening the bright points and working on the shadows, 'to taste' if you feel it is right. (I dislike using 'curves' because though they work fine, they are not replicable, and hence if you try to 'do it again' you cannot do that, exactly, unless somehow you can 'save' a curve profile -- a difficult task I have not mastered. I NEVER use curves for that reason when shadow/highlight filter is available to me.
Note that in shadow/highlight filter, there is some discoloration when you move the highlight selector to suppress some highlights (to bring out detail in the clouds as I think you should) and therefore if you move to the expanded version of that filter (check the box), you'll be presented with a color correction slider. Experiment with it, if you have not already, and do simple adjustments.
This saves all that tedious work of 'selecting' various portions of your fine work, then manipulating the exposures on each, one by one.
And you can change the value of the brightness onset for both shadow and highlight as you work to avoid unwanted effects, making the tool really versatile.
There are other ways, such as 'levels' but it is too pedestrian, with only a couple of changes available before you're out of options, whereas shadow/highlight has multiple, overlapping options. Be sure to set the shadow slider nearly to its leftmost setting, as it defaults to a very bright and usually unusable setting which you would not want for this photo (that suggests it was developed for deep shadows, but it works well for landscapes such as this.)
The idea is that your sky is a little washed out and though dramatic, it is too bright to reveal detail, and the detail would be very helpful to boosting this photo to the great or near great landscape level. It's nicely exposed, so you should have no trouble manipulating the light levels.
This may be the way it looked to your eye, but remember your eye and brain also are always scanning and making Photoshop-like adjustments, so there really is no 'natural look' no matter how this resembles what you think you saw. It may be accurate to your memory, but it can be improved, I think, and remember, the eye, as it scans a scene, such as this, has the iris constantly opening and closing as it moves from highlight to shadow to make adjustments and a photo is a compromise that cannot do that.
You have to do that for the viewer and every photo is a compromise; every photograph is an interpretation; there is no 'true color' only an approximation, and it can be beautiful, don't be hung up on what was 'natural' since your eye can't see 'natural' as it scans a scene as large as this (and constantly changes its own 'settings'.
I hope this is helpful.
I'd be appreciate if you work this over, if you'd e-mail me to let me know where to find a worked up version, either now or in the far future.
Best wishes (it's a nice work or I wouldn't have taken the time or gone to the specificity.)
(not rated)
John (Crosley)
Il signore che mi ha risposto è di una gentilezza unica, se voi potete darmi un'isea della tecnica che mi spiega forse sarà utile per tutti.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6032836
QUOTE(stefanostefano @ May 31 2007, 12:15 PM) 
John Crosley, May 31, 2007; 06:01 A.M.
Stefano
This is a fine photo that could be 'GREAT'.
It just needs a little better workup, I think.
You didn't probably have or use a polarizing filter; I don't even own one.
Try underexposing the results in Photoshop. Photoshop has a series of ways to do that.
...
John (Crosley)
Non ho tempo per farti una traduzione letterale ma tranquillo, dopo aver visto la tua foto il tutto si può sinteticamente riassumere così:
1. Mr. John Crosley ha il monitor starato.
2. Mr. John Crosley non usa Capture NX.
QUOTE(_Led_ @ May 31 2007, 01:17 PM)
Non ho tempo per farti una traduzione letterale ma tranquillo, dopo aver visto la tua foto il tutto si può sinteticamente riassumere così:
1. Mr. John Crosley ha il monitor starato.
2. Mr. John Crosley non usa Capture NX.
Sei MITICO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cmq un pò ci proverò a capire cosa voleva dirmi!!
GOOGLE --> strumenti per le lingue --> copi e incolli il testo --> traduci INGLESE/ITALIANO ...
QUOTE(geppoman @ May 31 2007, 02:26 PM)
GOOGLE --> strumenti per le lingue --> copi e incolli il testo --> traduci INGLESE/ITALIANO ...
Pronto neuro,,,,, un certo Geppoman è da ricoverare,,,,,,,
dai scherzo,,,,,
ma ne esce un geroglifico ancora più incomprensibile.Ma tu il senso l'ho hai capito??
Fondamentalmente non gli piace il cielo e dice di aggiustarlo con shadows/highlight (non so come sia il comando in italiano, anche io ho PS in inglese ma dovrebbe essere "luci/ombre") e non con le curve perchè non si può ripetere il processo (?) ed offrono meno opzioni (?!?)
Se non ho capito male pensa a qualcosa del genere
Se non ho capito male pensa a qualcosa del genere
dice che avresti fatto bene ad usare un polarizzatore ma suppone ch etu non lo abbia , come non lo ha nemmeno lui.
Si riferisce al cielo che trova piuttosto slavato e tetro (magari lo arebbe preferito azzurro, ma la giornata era quelo che era!)
Poi ti spiega come aumentare la gamma in photoshop usando il comando luci-ombre
Si riferisce al cielo che trova piuttosto slavato e tetro (magari lo arebbe preferito azzurro, ma la giornata era quelo che era!)
Poi ti spiega come aumentare la gamma in photoshop usando il comando luci-ombre
dai stefano... cacchio, vai su google e usa il link per il traduttore di lingue, e copi e incolli il testo che non capisci!!
cosa c'è da capire????
ehm... io parlo di tradurre il testo ..
cosa c'è da capire????
ehm... io parlo di tradurre il testo ..
Geppo, hai mai provato a tradurre una pagina dall'inglese con questi traduttori?
E' il miglior sistema per farsi 4 risate!
E' il miglior sistema per farsi 4 risate!
buzz... io traduco OGNI santo giorno tutte le diavolerie di siti stranieri che mi mandi te e altri..
si certo, ogni tanto non si capisce un tubo, e allora sai che ti dico?...
ehm.. VAI IN SPEEDLIGHT un secondino buzz?
si certo, ogni tanto non si capisce un tubo, e allora sai che ti dico?...
ehm.. VAI IN SPEEDLIGHT un secondino buzz?
QUOTE(Maicolaro @ May 31 2007, 02:49 PM)
Fondamentalmente non gli piace il cielo e dice di aggiustarlo con shadows/highlight (non so come sia il comando in italiano, anche io ho PS in inglese ma dovrebbe essere "luci/ombre") e non con le curve perchè non si può ripetere il processo (?) ed offrono meno opzioni (?!?)
Se non ho capito male pensa a qualcosa del genere
Grazie ma allora è stato veramente prolisso!!
QUOTE(buzz @ May 31 2007, 02:51 PM)
dice che avresti fatto bene ad usare un polarizzatore ma suppone ch etu non lo abbia , come non lo ha nemmeno lui.
Si riferisce al cielo che trova piuttosto slavato e tetro (magari lo arebbe preferito azzurro, ma la giornata era quelo che era!)
Poi ti spiega come aumentare la gamma in photoshop usando il comando luci-ombre
QUOTE(stefanostefano @ May 31 2007, 04:15 PM)
Grazie ma allora è stato veramente prolisso!!
Non poco.
Però devi essere orgoglioso, conclude dicendo: "e' un buon lavoro altrimenti non avrei perso tempo nell'andare sullo specifico"
