[BigMackCam]

Would something like this work? Just a couple of graduated filters in Lightroom and a bit of quick cloning in Photoshop.

Nice job on the cloning!

[jayman_1975]

Would something like this work? Just a couple of graduated filters in Lightroom and a bit of quick cloning in Photoshop.

This looks really good. Would you be able to share the full size jpg so I can try printing it?

[savoche]

This looks really good. Would you be able to share the full size jpg so I can try printing it?

Sure, I'll send you a PM.

[fotomarc]

Here's another take on it. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I'm out of time, so I thought I'd post it anyway. (I think I did too much sharpening on it in Lightroom, without realizing it, before exporting it to Photoshop and doing a bunch of edits. And my cloning/content-aware patching could be improved a bit. Etc., etc.... .)

Attached Images

 

[jayman_1975]

Here's another take on it. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I'm out of time, so I thought I'd post it anyway. (I think I did too much sharpening on it in Lightroom, without realizing it, before exporting it to Photoshop and doing a bunch of edits. And my cloning/content-aware patching could be improved a bit. Etc., etc.... .)

That’s really very good too. My attempt was pretty close to that

[jayman_1975]

This was my crack at it



---------- Post added 02-23-18 at 09:37 PM ----------

Here's another take on it. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I'm out of time, so I thought I'd post it anyway. (I think I did too much sharpening on it in Lightroom, without realizing it, before exporting it to Photoshop and doing a bunch of edits. And my cloning/content-aware patching could be improved a bit. Etc., etc.... .)

Actually on second look I like yours much better than my feeble attempt. Any chance I could have a link to the full size version?

[fotomarc]

Actually on second look I like yours much better than my feeble attempt. Any chance I could have a link to the full size version?

Thanks, I'm glad you like my attempt. Don't sell yourself short, though. I don't think my PP abilities are all that great, but I try to be persistent and try out different stuff, and eventually, I get somewhere.

One of the things I like about using a non-destructive editor like LR is that it's easy to try out different stuff and go back if it doesn't work out. I tend to make lots of virtual copies of an image. If I make some changes that I find promising, I'll often make a virtual copy and then use the copy to make more adjustments, so I can easily go back to the earlier version of the image. My skills with PS are pretty weak. I found this article helpful: Removing Objects with Content-Aware Fill and Patch in Photoshop CC.

In case you or anyone else is interested, here are the LR settings I used before editing with PS:

Exposure +1.79
Contrast +17
Highlights -45
Clarity +20
Vibrance -5
Red Saturation -5 [To make the aurora's red streak a little less saturated.]
Sharpening Amount 100 [I overdid this, I think.]
Noise Reduction Luminance 10
Noise Reduction Color 9
Dehaze Amount +21

And after the round-trip through PS:

Contrast +2

The Dehaze setting in LR is a relatively recent addition. I find that it can produce some appealing results (similar to Clarity, but different), even in photos where there isn't any obvious haze. (Here's an article about it: 5 Unconventional Uses for the Lightroom “Dehaze” Tool.)

In PS, I rotated the image 1.1 degrees clockwise to get the horizon more level (using the Crop tool with the content-aware option). Then I tried the content-aware Fill command to fill in the lower right corner. I wasn't satisfied with the results, so I went on to use the content-aware Patch tool to manually "clone" small sections to make it look more realistic. (My process in doing it was kind of haphazard.) Both of these are described in that first article I listed. (I had to look up how to use them. )

After doing that stuff, I then noticed that the sharpening I'd done in LR seemed to have made the noise in the image more visible that I had noticed in LR. (This might be due to different scaling algorithms in the two programs, or perhaps I had zoomed in a bit more in PS. I hadn't zoomed in to look closely at the effects of the sharpening in LR.) To try to compensate for it, I used the Reduce Noise command in PS (settings were probably Strength 10, Preserve Details 35, Reduce Color Noise 45, Sharpen Details 2).

I don't have a convenient place to post the full-size image at the moment, but I'd be happy to email it to you if you want to PM me your email address.

I hope I'll get to see and photograph the northern lights one of these days. (My girlfriend also really wants to see them.) I'm glad you were able to capture the image that you did.

Marc

[mee]

Letting us work with the DNG would help more.. I just see a small JPG? Not going to be able to process a lot on a jpg.

[jayman_1975]

Letting us work with the DNG would help more.. I just see a small JPG? Not going to be able to process a lot on a jpg.

Try this one


Dropbox - IMGP0019.DNG

[MrB1]

Having never seen the Northern Lights, I have no idea what they're meant to look like. However, I would expect the eyes to see a bit more of the scene below the sky, so here goes:

[Kerrowdown]

would someone be interested in making this a nice photo

Here's my take... a quick tweak with the JPEG.

[Schraubstock]

I come late into this, but not too late I hope.

Afraid, not much can be done with a JPG.
This will only be an indication, RAW can be rescued much better.
I think the foreground is important, it tells the story.
Leveled the horizon.
I did not attempt to over-dramatize the colours.

I like some feed back on this if possible.

[Schraubstock]

Sorry guys, trying to post the image again.

---------- Post added 26-02-18 at 08:56 PM ----------

Ah, success this time

[honey bo bo]

Afraid, not much can be done with a JPG.

Darn can only turn it into a Keeper !