Have a go at me!

You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-01-06 03:12:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...Flood%201c.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-01-06 04:42:40 +0000, RichA said:

On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:12:18 PM UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm

volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)


I think the only problem with it (aside from the typical Nikon "lines
on fine detail" (the upper tree branches) is that it doesn't convey a
flood. If I'd seen it, I'd assume it was a river or a small lake/pond.
Other than those issues, it looks ok.

WTF are "the typical Nikon "lines on fine detail""?



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:33:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-01-06 03:12:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...Flood%201c.jpg

In some ways you are closer to my target than I was. The colour of the
branches is warmer, but not as crisp. The effect that I was striving
for (and you didn't know about) was a marked increase in blue in the
muddy brown of the river: that and a warmer sunset yellow-orange of
the branches. It looks quite extraordinary, although not at all real.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 06/01/2014 03:12, Eric Stevens wrote:
You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.
[]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.
[]

Over-sharpened, but otherwise rather nice.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article 2014010520333995482-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

Did you ever try the Xe847 filter in the new GraphicConverter? It's
quite amazing. You can play around with it but here is the result just
using automatic mode:

http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/webdir/xe1/xe1.html

--
m-m
photo gallery:
http://mhmyers.com

On 2014-01-06 16:30:59 +0000, M-M said:

In article 2014010520333995482-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

Did you ever try the Xe847 filter in the new GraphicConverter? It's
quite amazing. You can play around with it but here is the result just
using automatic mode:

http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/webdir/xe1/xe1.html

I haven't used GraphicConverter in years. Back, sometime around 1998 I
bought a copy and stopped updating when I got PS7.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014010609143783079-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-01-06 16:30:59 +0000, M-M said:

In article 2014010520333995482-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to
fix.

Did you ever try the Xe847 filter in the new GraphicConverter? It's
quite amazing. You can play around with it but here is the result just
using automatic mode:

http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/webdir/xe1/xe1.html

I haven't used GraphicConverter in years. Back, sometime around 1998 I
bought a copy and stopped updating when I got PS7.

I always used it mainly for resizing, slide show and batch processing
of things like "remove dead pixels" or convert... But never for image
adjustment until now. It's come a long way since '98.

--
m-m
photo gallery:
http://mhmyers.com

On 2014-01-06 07:52:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:33:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-01-06 03:12:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...Flood%201c.jpg

In some ways you are closer to my target than I was. The colour of the
branches is warmer, but not as crisp. The effect that I was striving
for (and you didn't know about) was a marked increase in blue in the
muddy brown of the river: that and a warmer sunset yellow-orange of
the branches. It looks quite extraordinary, although not at all real.

Here is version, done entirely in LR5, compared with the unmolested original.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_509.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:29:45 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-01-06 07:52:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 5 Jan 2014 20:33:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-01-06 03:12:18 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You guys must be tired at only having PeterN to have a go at, so I'm
volunteering myself as victim.

Most of you will know that I am only now lowering myself into the
swamps of Photoshop. I've got to the stage of working on actual images
but only one is a condition suitable for viewing. As you will see from
the date in the Exif (I hope it is still there) it is one of the
earliest photographs I took with my D300.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.NEF
is the original raw file and
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Flood%201.jpg
is where I have got to with it so far. So, have a go at me.

A year or so I (almost) accidentally produced an image which was way
over the top. I've been trying all kinds of ways to produce a less
extreme example of where I got to then, but no luck so far.

So, have a go at me! Everytime a coconut. :-)

OK! Here is my rendition. I found yours a tad warm. I made most of the
adjustments in ACR, including setting the lens profile. setting black &
white points, adjusted shadows added some Clarity, and a slight tweak
to vibrance. I didn't touch saturation. I left WB as shot.
You hard good light so you gave us a good starting point with not much to fix.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...Flood%201c.jpg

In some ways you are closer to my target than I was. The colour of the
branches is warmer, but not as crisp. The effect that I was striving
for (and you didn't know about) was a marked increase in blue in the
muddy brown of the river: that and a warmer sunset yellow-orange of
the branches. It looks quite extraordinary, although not at all real.

Here is version, done entirely in LR5, compared with the unmolested original.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_509.jpg

I think I prefer the product of your work in Ps to them all so far. It
makes much better work of the light on the branches.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens