A novelty item

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 23:36:10 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

As long as we're doing novelties, here's yesterday's catch:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Rusty-Wre...9-207AA-XL.jpg

That coloration hurts my eyes. What did you do to it?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 01 May 2017 15:56:09 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:08:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0

Strange. It looks like that wall is mottled, but it has a horizontal
band that is not. And what I thought was OoF seems to be an illusion
from the lighting, and the rounded corners on the ends of the walls,
or columns, whatever the are. I still like that photo a lot.

On 2017-05-01 04:04:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:46:40 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

But that was about Alien Skin. The photo was only fodder for the
software.

AlienSkin Exposure was only part of the issue.
Primarily it was how you could go about matching an SOOC JPEG Acros
simulation from the RAF with LR or PS (ACR), or any other software you
might choose (NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or Exposure X2) for example. I
suggested using the ExposureX2 trial because I found it to be among the
best of the third party film simulations. If you felt you could do as
well with LR/PS and/or Silver Efex Pro2 that would be your choice.

Remember, you were one of the individuals insistant that if the film
simulation could be done SOOC, it could be done just as well in a
computer external to the camera.

Do you remember writing this:
"My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well. All it needs is the right programming."?
Unfortunately you didn't rise to the challenge after I provided an RAF
to play with.

The current ACR engine used by Lightroom and ACR will process RAF files
and will provide the Fujifilm simulations in the Camera Calibration
panel.

So you read more into my post than existed. You didn't have to use the
Exposure X2 trial if you didn't care to.
Anyway, the RAF is still there, for a little while longer.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

It certainly was a novelty at the moment I posted it. All I could see
was people arguing about things that had nothing to do with
photography.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:28:32 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 15:56:09 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:08:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0

Strange. It looks like that wall is mottled, but it has a horizontal
band that is not. And what I thought was OoF seems to be an illusion
from the lighting, and the rounded corners on the ends of the walls,
or columns, whatever the are. I still like that photo a lot.

Very old, very roughly made concrete, filled with pebbles and sea
shells. The banding is due to different pours of differently made
concrete.

Although the concrete is more uniform the banding can be seen in the
construction of
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztkt39a5ey...-5230.jpg?dl=0
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:31:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 04:04:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:46:40 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

But that was about Alien Skin. The photo was only fodder for the
software.

AlienSkin Exposure was only part of the issue.
Primarily it was how you could go about matching an SOOC JPEG Acros
simulation from the RAF with LR or PS (ACR), or any other software you
might choose (NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or Exposure X2) for example. I
suggested using the ExposureX2 trial because I found it to be among the
best of the third party film simulations. If you felt you could do as
well with LR/PS and/or Silver Efex Pro2 that would be your choice.

Remember, you were one of the individuals insistant that if the film
simulation could be done SOOC, it could be done just as well in a
computer external to the camera.

That is a question of logic. Nothing to do with the actual processing.
Remember the guy said it was impossible to do outside the camera. That
was the point with which I was taking issue. The discussion switched
to whether or not any existing software could achieve a similar
result. I dropped out at that point.

Do you remember writing this:
"My point is that if the processor in the camera can do it then a
processor outside the camera can do it
equally well. All it needs is the right programming."?
Unfortunately you didn't rise to the challenge after I provided an RAF
to play with.

Of course. I knew nothing about the programming required and neither
did anyone else. That's why I dropped out.

The current ACR engine used by Lightroom and ACR will process RAF files
and will provide the Fujifilm simulations in the Camera Calibration
panel.

Can these be distinguished from those done in the camera?
So you read more into my post than existed. You didn't have to use the
Exposure X2 trial if you didn't care to.
Anyway, the RAF is still there, for a little while longer.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

It certainly was a novelty at the moment I posted it. All I could see
was people arguing about things that had nothing to do with
photography.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/1/2017 12:04 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:46:40 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

But that was about Alien Skin. The photo was only fodder for the
software.

Hmm, I thought it was more about SOOC vs roll-your-own.


So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

It certainly was a novelty at the moment I posted it. All I could see
was people arguing about things that had nothing to do with
photography.

There was a sub-thread about film simulation that evoked
that thread. I'm still intrigued by realistic film grain simulation.

I was also interested in SOOC vs external processing.
As I recall, The Duck was saying Alien Skin came close
to his SOOC, and there was some conjecture (in a previous
thread) that that Acros effect could only be done in-camera.
I got damn close to the SOOC with some simple Photoshop
manipulations .. except for the grain simulation.
No Alien Skin involved (on my part) at all.
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2017-05-01 03:56:09 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0

I have to admit that section of raw concrete in the shade is tough to
render, and the texture is not exactly, ...er, pleasing. I think one of
the problems is the interaction between the green leaves/branches and
filtered light falling on that shaded area. What you end up with is an
area of shaded concrete which does not respond well to any sharpening
method and seems to have that blockiness/pixelation built-in.

Now I don't believe the effect is due to JPEG compression, just poor
weathered concrete.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2017-05-01 05:12:32 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 00:54:21 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:08:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 03:36:10 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:41:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:46:40 +0000, Ron C said:

On 4/30/2017 9:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:
On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works abandoned
in 1926.


I like the view too. Many years with the Hasselblad lead me to an appreciation
of the square format and the 4x5 1.25 ratio. Pano has its uses too but in
general I tend to focus on a small area of fine detail so a centered subject
works fine.

This started off as a 3 x 2 but it just seemed right to crop the
sides. In the original the trunk was much darker and I had to play
around a little to make its detail more visible. I didn't want to
overdo the light through the leaves.

Is this a copy of a real photo. It has the somewhat dated color look.

10th November 2012 at 2:23pm.

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

I have told you all this to show you that I have only been playing
around with light and shade, not colour.

That is all very nice. However, for whatever reason the old concrete,
especially to the right of the tree, seems to have some sort of
pixelation artifact, and for now I couldn't tell if that was due to
sharpening, JPEG compression, DoF issue, or something else.

I can't see anything that I would describe as 'pixelation'. I suspect
you may be seeing the texture of the concrete.

I can understand that Bill was thinking that it had something to do
with your PP. I suspected as much, but since you had labeled the shot
"A novelty item" I didn't go there. I just added to the novelty with my
two odd renditions.

I thought that it would be a novelty to have somebody post a
photograph.

Hey, The Duck posted a photo and attempted to start a thread
about a week ago. Seems I was the only one to jump in with
any photos.

So much for your photo as a novelty at this moment.

Just for the Hell of it, here is another novelty item.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lygkqdgmacksxk0/_DSF4167-Exposure.jpg

As long as we're doing novelties, here's yesterday's catch:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Rusty-Wre...9-207AA-XL.jpg

A

Checker

Marathon!
Great find, with suicide doors, and NBA leg room! Wonderful!
I hope they are planing a restoration.

It is a Marathon, but not a car with suicide doors. Look again. The
handle is at the rear of the rear door.

The Marathon was sold between 1961 and 1982 as a passenger car to
individuals. The Superba was the fleet-sale model sold as a taxi.

The Marathon had a lot of footroom between the front and back seats,
but no jump seats like the Superba.

I meant to add:

The guy operating the tow truck had trouble getting it off the bed.
All the tires were flat and it wouldn't roll off with the bed fully
tilted. After a while of trying to coax it off, he finally got the
rear end off the bed, tilted the bed to less of an angle, drove
forward a few feet, and the car crashed to the ground. The front end
fell about three feet in a cloud of dust and rust. Parts and pieces
flew. I asked him - deadpan - if he was afraid that he'd damaged the
car.

The horror! The horror!
I believe that would make a great restoration project, there are so few
of them around these days. In their prime they were tough virtually
indestructable hunks of steel. We had a local guy who had one in cab
livery which he used as a daily driver. Unfortunately I haven't seen it
around for some years now.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 22:21:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 03:56:09 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I see what appears to me to be some sort of image degradation to the
area of the image around the concrete. At f/11 I would believe the
concrete to be within the DoF, and the texture of the concrete to be
quite defined. It isn't.

At 100% what I see confirms what I see at 80%.
That is pixelation, not texture. Even more so at 150%. So all I can
surmise is probably JPEG compression artifact.

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0

I have to admit that section of raw concrete in the shade is tough to
render, and the texture is not exactly, ...er, pleasing. I think one of
the problems is the interaction between the green leaves/branches and
filtered light falling on that shaded area. What you end up with is an
area of shaded concrete which does not respond well to any sharpening
method and seems to have that blockiness/pixelation built-in.

Now I don't believe the effect is due to JPEG compression, just poor
weathered concrete.

Yep. Rather like that dust which turned out to be seagulls. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2017-05-01, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-01 01:08:48 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:06:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-04-30 23:48:42 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:42:10 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:



On 4/30/2017 5:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:52:16 -0500, gray_wolf
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Although breaking the 'rule of thirds' I kinda like
https://www.dropbox.com/s/irz2t9v62a...99-br.jpg?dl=0
The background is a section of a 130 year old cement works
abandoned in 1926.

You have got something close to 'thirds' horizontally )

[...]

I processed the image in Photoshop. I haven't done anything with color
except Clarity, vibrance and saturation in ACR. For the rest, I (1)
created an inverted luminance mask so I could concentrate my
adjustments on the tree trunk, (2) used the mask to apply a curves
adjustment layer, (3) used the mask with a brightness/contrast layer
and (4) duplicated layer (3) to in effect gain a more contrasted
effect.

[...]

OK. Here is the original NEF. How do they compare?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dkkojme958...C5299.NEF?dl=0

[...]

For what it's worth, I like what you did in post processing. It does
improve the image, I think.

Zooming in, I think I detect that the plane of focus is somewhat this
side of the tree trunk, and the concrete structure in the background is
slightly outside the sharpest 'depth of field'. Combined with the very
poor and uneven quality of the concrete and its reaction to a century of
weathering and neglect, that does make the concrete's appearance
difficult to interpret. I'd be tempted to try making it even 'softer'
(don't ask me how, I've never used 'Photoshop').

I'd like to think that if I were in contemplative mood when taking a
photo such as this, I'd consider using a larger aperture and careful
focussing and exposure on the tree trunk to make it stand out more.

Comparing photos on different computers can be tricky, as artifacts
introduced by our own hardware and calibrations and viewing conditions
have an effect - as do variations in individual eyesight.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~