[RM Barker]

I would like very much to become better at capturing images in situations like the attached photo. Any suggestions would be most welcome. I have in post-processing, brightened the shadows a little, converted from DNG to .jpg and resized to fit the specifications of this Forum.

I am not pleased with the way this photo is showing here - my converted .jpg is significantly brighter - this is dull and seems to be somewhat un-focussed. Is there a reason? I have posted a number of photos and have not been displeased with teh display. Oh, well ... Please offer what you can anyway. Thank you.

Mer Bleue is mis-spelled in the heading. Sorry.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by RM Barker; 05-20-2012 at 09:03 AM.

[fg-one]

You will find some possible explanations for the loss of sharpness in here:
Image Resizing for the Web and Email
It is likely that resizing causes the blur. I resize using the export function of LR3. There do not seem to be much softening, although I sharpen a bit after resizing. The dark areas should be easy to enhance from your K5 .DNG files.

[RM Barker]

Thank you, fg-one. I will look at your reference very closely. I resized and exported from LR4. Until I recently purchased LR4, I used PE10 and its predecessors, and downsized files using FastStone. It is strange, because the downsized, exported file from LR4 looks fine, the only one that does not is the copy resulting from the upload to the Forum. Go figure, eh?

[RM Barker]

Please excuse my trying once more: I have used the original .jpg created in PE10, resized by FastStone.

Yes, much better.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[dadipentak]

Yes, much better.

Imdeed.

[fg-one]

the only one that does not is the copy resulting from the upload to the Forum. Go figure, eh?

Could it be that you resize the portrait images at 1024 px high, when they should be 700? I had the problem before and the loss in quality coming from the on site resizing was noticeable.

[tackyat.2]

Make sure when you're exporting from LR, you set the color space to sRGB.
This is important if you're shooting AdobeRGB in camera.

Not setting the color space will reduce color saturation and contrast for internet usage.

[RM Barker]

Thanks, tackyat.2 I did in fact change that setting. I will remember.

[Schraubstock]

Please excuse my trying once more: I have used the original .jpg created in PE10, resized by FastStone.

Yes, much better.

Hi Robert

Here is another variation of your image. I tweaked it in OLONEO PhotoEngine, a french program I use a lot. It appears that at the time the photo was taken the sky was pretty much blue and clear and from this a deduce that the low sun was possibly not casting the strong yellow light as it shows in your image. My variation may not display correctly on your monitor if it is not calibrated, but a lot of monitors these days are not too bad out of the box.

I also think there is a wee bit too much foreground. Because it is pretty much just a featureless path I feel the extra does not add anything to the image. Be interested to know what you think.

Greetings

[RM Barker]

Dear Schraubstock, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thank you.

I have been able to replicate, very closely, what you have done using both Lightroom and Photoshop Elements and I do agree that your version improves the photograph. You blue is somewhat more definite than I have been able to replicate but that has more to do with my level of skill using photo-editing software. As I recall the actual scene, I think the shadows were, in fact, deeper than we are allowing them to be, which, photographically-speaking, is the correct thing to do - the deep shadows were practically obliterating any detail of the shubbery in the background.

Thank you, again.

[Schraubstock]

Dear Schraubstock, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thank you.

I have been able to replicate, very closely, what you have done using both Lightroom and Photoshop Elements and I do agree that your version improves the photograph. You blue is somewhat more definite than I have been able to replicate but that has more to do with my level of skill using photo-editing software. As I recall the actual scene, I think the shadows were, in fact, deeper than we are allowing them to be, which, photographically-speaking, is the correct thing to do - the deep shadows were practically obliterating any detail of the shubbery in the background.

Thank you, again.

Dear Schraubstock, this is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. Thank you.

I have been able to replicate, very closely, what you have done using both Lightroom and Photoshop Elements and I do agree that your version improves the photograph. You blue is somewhat more definite than I have been able to replicate but that has more to do with my level of skill using photo-editing software. As I recall the actual scene, I think the shadows were, in fact, deeper than we are allowing them to be, which, photographically-speaking, is the correct thing to do - the deep shadows were practically obliterating any detail of the shubbery in the background.

Thank you, again.

Thanks Robert for your kind reply.

You write: "As I recall the actual scene, I think the shadows were, in fact, deeper than... and "... the deep shadows were practically obliterating any detail..."

Allow me to pass an observation.

In my 50 odd years in photography I believe I can safely say, without any desire for self praise, I have learned a few things here and there. I have learned and come to appreciate the fact that ones memory can be severely tested when trying to recall what was on display at the time when a photograph was taken. I struggle with it even today. Particularly when trying to recall colour for example. There are two factors that can move you away from reality.

At the scene where you take the picture the natural light is different to that what the electronic light source of your monitor can produce. On top of that your peripheral vision out in the open catches light which your brain will assemble differently then as it would when working with a monitor display.

The second factor has to do with emotion. One can be totally overcome by the beauty of subject matter. One wonderful example of this is the ever popular sunset. You can observe this when people totally oversaturate colours in such a shot. In other words the desire to make the sunset more powerful is a temptation very few of us can resist. And of course with modern software it is so easy to do. The result, a totally unrealistic image. Try to convince people otherwise and they fight you tooth and nail. They want to make a picture prettier than nature has provided them.

As I said, now with modern software we all have a chance to manipulate a photograph. (Much easier than in the old film days.) When I work with an image I want to correct in PP and I cannot recall what was on display originally ( or I work on someone else's) I try to take a cue from certain parts of the photograph and deduce from that what might have been. In your image I took the cue from the little bit of blue sky that can be seen which immediately tells me that the strong yellow rendering is hard to reconcile.

You can now see where I am leading to when you make the above comment about shadows. The human eye is actually quite colour and light sensitive and I bet you probably saw more than what is in you memory. And I bet there was more light then you thing, otherwise the camera would not be able to capture it so clearly. And to bring it out in PP in such a way without introducing grain proves it.

I did not mean this to be a lecture but merely something you may not have thought of.

Greetings

Edit: No explanation for the repeated quote, gremlins I suspect.

[RM Barker]

Aaah, the gremlins! You have them in Australia, too. I suspect we both might have involuntarily imported them from "the Mother Country" way back when.

In my other life, as a teacher and teacher-unionist, I was frequently lecturing; in the latter years of that career, I was more often giving, of course, than getting. Since retirement (1998), the ratio may be more equal but tilting toward the getting more often than the giving as I grow older. But, who needs more garrulous Poloniuses (or should that be "Polonii"). Anyway, what I am trying to say is that I do not mind being lectured (if, indeed, you were lecturing), particularly, in a field, about which I want to learn as much as possible and put it into practice.

In adddition, I do think your point is well taken. In fact, I am not even certain that I am interpreting correctly what I am seeing when I see it, never mind a week later. I did not think to judge the colour of the path, which was indeed very yellow in the photo I posted, by clues yielded by the colour of the sky. It is a very valuable lesson to bear in mind. The original photo was taken at 7:34 pm, which time, in Canada at this time of year, is about an hour from sunset. So, while the shadows might have appeared quite deep, the foliage should have been relatively clear, which fact was probably what attracted my attention in the first place. Your analysis is well-founded.

Thanks, again, Schraubstock.

Robert

[Schraubstock]

Aaah, the gremlins! You have them in Australia, too. I suspect we both might have involuntarily imported them from "the Mother Country" way back when.

In my other life, as a teacher and teacher-unionist, I was frequently lecturing; in the latter years of that career, I was more often giving, of course, than getting. Since retirement (1998), the ratio may be more equal but tilting toward the getting more often than the giving as I grow older. But, who needs more garrulous Poloniuses (or should that be "Polonii"). Anyway, what I am trying to say is that I do not mind being lectured (if, indeed, you were lecturing), particularly, in a field, about which I want to learn as much as possible and put it into practice.

In adddition, I do think your point is well taken. In fact, I am not even certain that I am interpreting correctly what I am seeing when I see it, never mind a week later. I did not think to judge the colour of the path, which was indeed very yellow in the photo I posted, by clues yielded by the colour of the sky. It is a very valuable lesson to bear in mind. The original photo was taken at 7:34 pm, which time, in Canada at this time of year, is about an hour from sunset. So, while the shadows might have appeared quite deep, the foliage should have been relatively clear, which fact was probably what attracted my attention in the first place. Your analysis is well-founded.

Thanks, again, Schraubstock.

Robert

Thanks Robert, I enjoyed talking to you.

Greetings