Is this overcooked?

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

--
PeterN

PeterN Wrote in message:
On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

Oki...
--
Bats can't tell us apart!


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:58:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...

Didn't have it. I had to deal with it in processing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

--
PeterN

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

It was the fog I was trying to deal with.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/21/2015 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

It was the fog I was trying to deal with.


I know. I have had success with fog using levels, one channel at a time,
rather than just applying a levels layer to RGB, or LAB.

You have to play to get what you are looking for, but apply levels to
each channel separately, and mask the part you don't want affected.


--
PeterN

On 2/21/2015 7:13 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/21/2015 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android
wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air
streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't
resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing
as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this
result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj

ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly
different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have
but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about
the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet
than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a
TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m.
At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are
many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

It was the fog I was trying to deal with.


I know. I have had success with fog using levels, one channel at a time,
rather than just applying a levels layer to RGB, or LAB.

You have to play to get what you are looking for, but apply levels to
each channel separately, and mask the part you don't want affected.



I forgot to add that you can also use the unsharp mask on the lightness
channel in LAB, in combination with RGB levels. Perhaps that is what you
were thinking of.

--
PeterN

On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:13:11 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/21/2015 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

It was the fog I was trying to deal with.


I know. I have had success with fog using levels, one channel at a time,
rather than just applying a levels layer to RGB, or LAB.

You have to play to get what you are looking for, but apply levels to
each channel separately, and mask the part you don't want affected.

I certainly had to do considerable masking to enable me to treat the
mountain differently from everything else.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2/21/2015 8:56 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:13:11 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/21/2015 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:06:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/20/2015 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:31:52 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/18/2015 11:58 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:43:21 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:38:36 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I came over a rise early(ish) in the morning, and there was Mt
Ruapehu. There was no visible volcanic activity but the air streaming
of the mountain left a most spectacular plume. I couldn't resist it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.NEF

For those who can't read a NEF file, here is the same thing as an
unadjusted JPG.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC2508.jpg

I wanted to make the mountain stand out more, with this result in
Photoshop.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20Smart%20Obj
ect
-1.
jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/kflzcq6

I didn't like this much: the sky seems wrong so I tried it with
Lightroom (with a touch of photoshop) with this slightly different
result https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...03/LR--1-2.jpg

The question is, have I overcooked the sky? I think I have but other
people don't want me to touch it. (Please don't tell me about the line
at the edge of the foreground where I selected it fo different
treatment. I know about that).

Nice perspective but the focus seem to more on you're feet than the
mountain. The scene should be suitable for focus stacking or a TS-lense.

According to the EXIF data, the hyperfocal distance was 4.31m. At that
close range just about everything should be in acceptable focus.

The mountain seemed to lack some edge...

Fog - mist ...

Haze - filter ...


I have had success using levels: Do each channel individually. Plus I
can mask the fog I want to keep.
And no, I will not get into the old "do it in the camera," debate. I
think you should do as much as you can in the camera, but there are many
times.......

I tried it in LAB. Some success but not enough.


You can't do RGB channels separately in LAB.

It was the fog I was trying to deal with.


I know. I have had success with fog using levels, one channel at a time,
rather than just applying a levels layer to RGB, or LAB.

You have to play to get what you are looking for, but apply levels to
each channel separately, and mask the part you don't want affected.

I certainly had to do considerable masking to enable me to treat the
mountain differently from everything else.


I can well understand. Been there, done that, and did not like the results.

--
PeterN