Opinions Wanted

On Fri, 23 May 2014 17:07:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-23 23:20:45 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 05:42:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-23 11:29:25 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-23 09:24:30 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 23 May 2014 00:18:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-23 06:15:22 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-23 04:31:01 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 22 May 2014 19:51:08 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-23 02:11:36 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 22 May 2014 18:02:00 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.05.20, 23:46 , Eric Stevens wrote:
Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.

My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
three different sets of strong opinions.

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza

I like the basic scene.

I do not see any problem with the amount of dreary sky.

To be sure, a sky full of white is not usually appealing, but there is
subtle shading and blues that makes it work.

If anything I have issues with the thick green plants in the extreme
foreground (images 1 - 3).

And of course the purple/green fringing on the branch is simply not
acceptable (Camera raw can be helpful with that).

Damn! I missed that. I thought I had got rid of all fringes.

If you shot NEFs it is a pretty simple correction in the latest version
of ACR, or in LR5.
Just zoom in to 100% at an obviously affected area. Go to Lens
Correction-Color(check *Remove Chromatic Aberration*)- adjust sliders
to neutralize.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_707.jpg

The high aspect ratio shot ("cropped") that hh posted works the best
overall, IMO - except for the purple fringe issue.

Even at full magnification in ACR the fringes are barely visible. The
very prononounced fringes in the files in Dropbox are due to my
efforts to enlarge the image size and to sharpen the result. I first
worked separately upon the greenery by cutting it out with a layer
mask which included the various flax stalks, branches and twigs
protruding into the sea and the hills behind.

The original image size was 3008 x 2000. After cropping I increased
the size to 8419 x 5953. After allowing for the cropping I estimate
that was about a 16 times increase in the number of pixels (4 times
increase on each side). Smart sharpen was then not working for me and
I sharpened the image with multiple passes of unsharp mask at 5, 4, 3,
2 and 1 pixel. That last pixel produced fringing all over the place so
I reversed it with ctrl+z. I suspect I should have undone the 2
pixel sharpen also.

The purple colour can be explained in part by the fact that the flax
stalks are deep purple.

You can find the original NEF file at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

I will play with that.

OK!
Without second guessing your intentions and actual adjustments I took a
quick look at it and did the following:
Opened in ACR, set camera profile to camera standard, set the 18-70mm
lens profile, and activated the CA correction moving the purple slider
slightly to the right.
In the Basic panel I set the black & white points, opened up the
shadows, checked highlights, & added some clarity.
In the Details panel I set the sharpening to 124% with a 1.4 radius, &
applied a mask to take the overcast out of the sharpening equation.
I then checked for spots, and guess what you have a bunch of dustspots
up in the broad expanse of the overcast. I fixed those.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_708.jpg

Opened into PS CC, in ProPhoto RGB 3008x2000 @ 360 ppi:

I went to *Image Size* and set to your 8419x5953 @360 ppi.
Selected crop tool, and set that to 8419x5953 @360 ppi, then did what I
could to come closest to your #2 crop.
For a different crop version I selected a 16:9 ratio which comes out at
8419x4736 @360.

I did no other molestation.

So here are those two crop versions with the CA taken care of:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...Eric%20Project

Interesting.

You

brought

up the greenery in the foreground from out of
the depths of darkness but you did likewise with the hills in the
background. It was that very problem that caused me to separate the
foreground from the background with a layer mask. The two regions
require quite different treatment.

As I said, I was doing a quick down and dirty treatment looking at
three things:
ACR NEF processing where I dealt with basics, including CF correction,
sharpening, etc.
Resizing and two crops to final dimensions similar to yours. My primary
concern was fixing the CF issue.
I didn't consider any other treatment including your method of resizing
and sharpening with either Smart Sharpen or multiple passes of USM. I
thought that this was an image which could suffer from a heavy hand
with sharpening.

Just my opinion.

What I will do a third, more deliberate version which I will add to
that DB folder later today.

OK! First the ACR adjustments.
This time I used *Camera Neutral* instead of *Camera Standard*
Then I fixed the spots.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_708.jpg

'Spots'? Those wuz seegulls!

Definitely dust spots. I also own a D70 and I know what a dust magnet
it can be. Just look at the structure of those spots prior to
correction. Them's not gulls.

I hoped you were and would accept that story.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_717.jpg

Next the CA adjustment.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_710.jpg

Now the basic adjustments including black & white point setting.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_711.jpg

Then a further adjustment to the foreground using the adjustment brush.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_712.jpg

Finally in ACR some sharpening. Note the settings with a fairly heavy
handed on the masking to exclude the areas where sharpening is not
wanted.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_709.jpg

Only resizing and crop was done in PS CC, and the final version added
to the DB folder with the other two. No additional sharpening.

I did the sharpening after resizing.

...and you might have done that a bit too much, resulting in some of
the sharpening artifacts on those bare branches which appear as halo
like fringing.

That was my feeling also.

That is an image which can survive without too much
sharpening.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...Eric%20Project


The

hills are good but the greenery should not be as light as in
image 3.

Artistic license. ;-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 22 May 2014 00:26:01 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:
: On Thu, 22 May 2014 15:10:52 +1200, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:16:52 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:46:16 +1200, Eric Stevens
: wrote:
: : Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
: : coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
: : a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
: : suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.
: :
: : My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
: : idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
: : made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
: : three different sets of strong opinions.
: :
: : I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
: : prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
: : anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
: : a JPG of each version in:
: :
: : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza
:
: No. 2, cropped to an 8:5 aspect ratio by trimming the top. Both 1 (especially)
: and 3 show too much of the featureless ocean and sky. The center of interest
: is correctly placed on the rock outcroppings along the shore.
:
: Recscuba has also suggested cropping to increase the aspect ratio. As
: I explained to him, dimensions and proportions are already constrained
: by the need to match another print.
:
: The problem with soliciting opinions here is that you'll get so many
: suggestions that it'll end up being of no help to you. While all of
: the people making suggestions are well-meaning, no one can be aware of
: the self-imposed restraints you haven't divulged. And, you can't
: really anticipate what needs to be divulged.
:
: Go with your gut, Eric. You have a good photograph, albeit with three
: versions created in post, but something good to start with. Whatever
: you end up with will be on *your* wall. You choose.

You're telling him not to solicit any advice if he's not sure he can use it
all, and that's silly. My suggestion about the aspect ratio has little to do
with making a selection among the three versions of the image. The right
procedure is to heed the advice, if any, that makes sense and discard the
rest.

Bob

On 5/23/2014 7:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:




here is another glimpse of the sort of day it was up there in the Sierras.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-1.jpg

That one would probably have been a bit easier to *burn in*.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-2.jpg

I like a slower shutter speed. To my eye the water is too static and
distracting.

--
PeterN

On 5/23/2014 8:00 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 08:23:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 5/23/14 PDT, 5:54 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-23 12:42:13 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2014-05-23 11:29:25 +0000, Savageduck
said:

Snipped bits out

OK! First the ACR adjustments.
This time I used *Camera Neutral* instead of *Camera Standard*
Then I fixed the spots.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_708.jpg

Next the CA adjustment.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_710.jpg

Now the basic adjustments including black & white point setting.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_711.jpg

Then a further adjustment to the foreground using the adjustment brush.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_712.jpg

Finally in ACR some sharpening. Note the settings with a fairly heavy
handed on the masking to exclude the areas where sharpening is not
wanted.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_709.jpg

Only resizing and crop was done in PS CC, and the final version added
to the DB folder with the other two. No additional sharpening.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...Eric%20Project


BTW:

Here was my crop POV.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_714.jpg

For my taste, foreground is too crunchy, diverts attention.

As to cropping, I'd like to see more open space- a gap in the flora- on
the left side, showing a bit of open ocean.

I also like the B+W better.

How about:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza


Error 404.

--
PeterN

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

--
PeterN

On 5/24/2014 8:28 AM, Robert Coe wrote:


snip


You're telling him not to solicit any advice if he's not sure he can use it
all, and that's silly. My suggestion about the aspect ratio has little to do
with making a selection among the three versions of the image. The right
procedure is to heed the advice, if any, that makes sense and discard the
rest.


Isn't that true of life?
Well intentioned advice from a third party need only be considered as it
may be applicable. It should not be slavishly followed in all respects.

--
PeterN

On 2014-05-24 15:25:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/23/2014 7:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:




here is another glimpse of the sort of day it was up there in the Sierras.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-1.jpg

That one would probably have been a bit easier to *burn in*.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-2.jpg

I like a slower shutter speed. To my eye the water is too static and
distracting.

What water in that image?
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/24/2014 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-24 15:25:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/23/2014 7:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:




here is another glimpse of the sort of day it was up there in the
Sierras.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-1.jpg

That one would probably have been a bit easier to *burn in*.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-2.jpg

I like a slower shutter speed. To my eye the water is too static and
distracting.

What water in that image?

Well done. I see you are counting on my not downloading the image.

--
PeterN

On 2014-05-24 19:46:02 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/24/2014 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-24 15:25:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/23/2014 7:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:




here is another glimpse of the sort of day it was up there in the
Sierras.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-1.jpg

That one would probably have been a bit easier to *burn in*.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-2.jpg

I like a slower shutter speed. To my eye the water is too static and
distracting.

What water in that image?

Well done.

....er, thanks I guess.

I see you are counting on my not downloading the image.

Not at all.
You can view it via Dropbox without downloading it. That is a resized
to 624x940, 409 KB version for online viewing, I didn't think you
actually wanted to download it.

If you want to play with the original just say so.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 21 May 2014 15:46:16 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Some years ago I used my trusty D70 to take a photograph of a west
coast bay in rough conditions. Recently I've been trying to arrive at
a composition suitable for printing on matte paper in A2 size and
suitable for framing and hanging on a wall.

My present problem is that every member of my family has a different
idea of the best composition and in an attempt to bring peace I have
made three different versions. That hasn't really helped as I now have
three different sets of strong opinions.

I know that computer monitors are not ideal for viewing and proofing
prints of this kind but I am interested in gathering the opinions of
anyone in this newsgroup who is bold enough to state one. You can find
a JPG of each version in:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...M2OQuylz7CgFza


A surpringly large number of people have responded to my email above,
for which I am very grateful. I would like to thank everyone for
responding.

Opinions were expressed with 2 as the very clear favourite as follows:

In favour of 1 2 3
0 10 1

I will now admit I wasn't completely honest in my initial article. I
had already made my decision in favour of 2 about a week before I
posted article. I had arranged for the print to be framed and in view
of the conflicting opinions expressed in this house I wanted to find
outwhether or not I had no taste or merely very poor taste. In any
case, here is the framed print alongside the one it was suppose to
match.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva

Notice the difference in the colour of the matting. I was never
entirely happy with the colour of matte on the left and now I am less
happy.

Before anyone comments: I have two small spotlights up on the ceiling
and these have yet to be correctly re-aimed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens