[sealonsf]

I just posted this to the Post Your Photos thread but then thought I'd like people's opinion about the post processing I did on this photo. I generally don't like a lot of processing, but I like this look... but having said that - do you think it's heavy-handed? Look too fake? What do you think overall?



This is the original with no post processing:

[Tas]

I'd like people's opinion about the post processing I did on this photo.

G'day, as this is opinion only I will offer some feedback for you to ignore or consider.

• It was the right decision to remove the stairs on the left, though it's a shame you lost that awesome clock because of it. An option for next time might be to move forward past the stairs with something like the 28mm or 40mm and create a panorama. This should get you the full vista you've captured here but with the clock and without the stairs.
• The lightening of the tones to a warmer look is a personal preference. I prefer the more muted colours as they reflect the wet weather more accurately IMHO.
• I like how there's more detail captured in the buildings, particularly under the arches on the right so lightening has opened up the image nicely. However as this has been done globally there's two things that I'd like to draw your attention to:
  • Firstly, look at the darker more mirrored reflection in the original. The lightened version has a really cool reflective sheen to it and I like it however I'm in two minds as to whether it's better than the mirrored reflection of the original. If possible I'd suggest you look at doing a new version but with selective lightening of the buildings but not the foreground surface.
  • Secondly, the eye is automatically drawn to the brightest and sharpest parts of an image. The brightest part of this image is the sky as it's now completely blown out. My preference is for more sky detail to be retained by either masking out the sky when increasing the exposure or balancing the sky using a dehaze filter as these tend to drive down exposure and draw out colour and detail.

In summary: I like your image and what you've down with it but think some selective masking would capture the mood of the scene more accurately than global changes. But of course, this is only my opinion.

Thanks for sharing and giving me the opportunity to provide some feedback.

Tas.

[sealonsf]

G'day, as this is opinion only I will offer some feedback for you to ignore or consider.

• It was the right decision to remove the stairs on the left, though it's a shame you lost that awesome clock because of it. An option for next time might be to move forward past the stairs with something like the 28mm or 40mm and create a panorama. This should get you the full vista you've captured here but with the clock and without the stairs.
• The lightening of the tones to a warmer look is a personal preference. I prefer the more muted colours as they reflect the wet weather more accurately IMHO.
• I like how there's more detail captured in the buildings, particularly under the arches on the right so lightening has opened up the image nicely. However as this has been done globally there's two things that I'd like to draw your attention to:
  • Firstly, look at the darker more mirrored reflection in the original. The lightened version has a really cool reflective sheen to it and I like it however I'm in two minds as to whether it's better than the mirrored reflection of the original. If possible I'd suggest you look at doing a new version but with selective lightening of the buildings but not the foreground surface.
  • Secondly, the eye is automatically drawn to the brightest and sharpest parts of an image. The brightest part of this image is the sky as it's now completely blown out. My preference is for more sky detail to be retained by either masking out the sky when increasing the exposure or balancing the sky using a dehaze filter as these tend to drive down exposure and draw out colour and detail.

In summary: I like your image and what you've down with it but think some selective masking would capture the mood of the scene more accurately than global changes. But of course, this is only my opinion.

Thanks for sharing and giving me the opportunity to provide some feedback.

Tas.

Thank you! This does help. You mentioned some of the things I wasn't very happy about - can't do much about the clock now, and I agree it's a shame to lose it. I started fresh and came up with the following, but it might be a bit dark.

[Tas]

Thank you! This does help. You mentioned some of the things I wasn't very happy about - can't do much about the clock now, and I agree it's a shame to lose it. I started fresh and came up with the following, but it might be a bit dark.

That has some really nice improvements to it, the sky is the one that really stands out as does the more ominous and aged look of the buildings. Some of the darker tones look really good and the wet surface reflection still retains plenty of character. From my perspective I think this is a step in the right direction.

AS you've pointed out it does look darker and something you could try is to raise the shadows after setting your white/black points. This should enable you to retain contrast across the full spectrum but lighten areas that look oppressively dark without losing the deep blacks or blowing out the lighter parts.

Did you use a graduated filter to darken the top of frame? The sky is nicely balanced but I'd check the highlight slider to see if you can draw the clouds down a bit where they're blown out (this may or may not work so settle on what looks most natural). If you have used a graduated filter to darken the sky it might be better to use a masking brush instead as the tops of the buildings, especially the dome and spire in the centre appear noticeably darker. This looks a bit unnatural so whilst a masking brush can be a pain it might provide a more natural look to the sky without impacting the buildings. Just make sure you feather your brush enough to blend it in. Depending on the software instead of a masking brush you might also be able to select the sky and reduce the exposure using adjustments on a layer.

Some other options to consider is to look at individual colours and adjusting their luminance to balance out the image. The blues can be darkened for the sky and the yellows, reds oranges and greens can be lightened to emphasise elements of the foreground detail. This approach can give you very good control of colour hue, saturation and brightness in specific parts of the frame.

Anyhoo, I like parts of what you've down in the original PP and the modified version, and somewhere in the middle is likely to provide a good natural balance for this scene.

Tas

[Schraubstock]

Hi

This is my sort of photography.

The JPG does not offer any meaningful corrections, still I had a bit of a go at it.
Sorry, I don't like your version. Please don't despise me for saying this. The washed out white sky doesn't do anything for me, particularly since I know the original shot had a lot of detail and you disposed of it. I tried to recover a bit of it but as I said the JPG makes this hard. Still an indication of what it could look like is there. The detail strength of the whole picture is overplayed which makes it dirty looking. I think you ought to ease back on this. It could of course be a personal liking but in my experience it would only appeal to a small number of people.

Another thing to consider is, at one stage you may want to print some of your travel shots, I know a lot of mine are being printed, and your pic would not print very well. It would be too dark and contrasty with colour looking even more dirty.

I am pleased to see you straightened up the ugly falling wide angle lines something not to many people do.

With a bit of practice you can (better done on the big original) clone out the stairs and I would not hesitate to do this because it appears to be only a temporary structure.

As a travel photographer I am right into this sort of thing and with a bit of manipulation you have a beautiful shot.

Hope I have not been too upsetting.

[sealonsf]

Hi

This is my sort of photography.

The JPG does not offer any meaningful corrections, still I had a bit of a go at it.
Sorry, I don't like your version. Please don't despise me for saying this. The washed out white sky doesn't do anything for me, particularly since I know the original shot had a lot of detail and you disposed of it. I tried to recover a bit of it but as I said the JPG makes this hard. Still an indication of what it could look like is there. The detail strength of the whole picture is overplayed which makes it dirty looking. I think you ought to ease back on this. It could of course be a personal liking but in my experience it would only appeal to a small number of people.

Another thing to consider is, at one stage you may want to print some of your travel shots, I know a lot of mine are being printed, and your pic would not print very well. It would be too dark and contrasty with colour looking even more dirty.

I am pleased to see you straightened up the ugly falling wide angle lines something not to many people do.

With a bit of practice you can (better done on the big original) clone out the stairs and I would not hesitate to do this because it appears to be only a temporary structure.

As a travel photographer I am right into this sort of thing and with a bit of manipulation you have a beautiful shot.

Hope I have not been too upsetting.

Thank you for your comments. I am relatively new to Lightroom and I have very little patience for post processing - I'll come back from a 3-week trip with thousands of photos to process so it's a bit overwhelming. You gave me a lot to think about. Between you and Tas I've already improved so I really appreciate it. I don't print my photos but I do make photo books so I'll think about the contrasts. I do like the "dirty" look but I should think about the best time to use it.

[csa]

Absolutely no offense meant; but I prefer the "punch" of the OP's added corrected print over Schraubstock's. It simply comes down to each individual taste, so I'm definitely not saying Shcraubstock's correction isn't as good or better; simply not to my eyes.

Both have great merit!

[ccc_]

just mask the washed-out sky and add one of your liking
my old eyes really like your first attempt though it took awhile to edit a sky that went with it

[Schraubstock]

I'll come back from a 3-week trip with thousands of photos to process so it's a bit overwhelming.

Hi
Thanks for your kind reaction to my post.

"I'll come back from a 3-week trip with thousands of photos to process so it's a bit overwhelming"
Here is a thought about this you might find, or not as it were, interesting. A bit off topic though.

I know the feeling. In reality however one has to be ruthlessly and selective. Only images which to your eye are worth preserving should be kept.

As to what I do, I select the ones which are good (must have) and some I consider marginal. This alone will be a sizable quantity. The rest I chuck. If I don't do this I will only suffer enormously under the stress to select what I want. Confucius said - "He who has the choice suffers the anguish."

You have to remember this:
You as the creator of all the shots you come home with every image has a strong connection to the moment it was taken, and this includes the bad ones. They too carry memories and emotions just as much as the good ones do. As a consequence you are loath to discard a lot of shots. (Even duplicates, I know, I have been there.) You say, maybe I will use them one day - you never will ! (it is the hoarder principal where the value of things is not the item itself but the fact that you own them. It is the ownership hoarders value not the object.)

But everybody around you who were not with you when the photos were taken are free of this emotional package and they don't miss the photos you just put in the bin. In your presentation or Photo Book they will ever only see the good images and this is all that matters - to you and them.

Weeding out the keepers from the "chaff" with computer programs available these days is actually quite easy and quickly done. I remember in the days of film I spent hours with a magnifying glass over the light box, scratching crosses over the ones I would never consider. (I am still alive and I am not missing anything.)

Now that you have freed yourself of the ballast you can devote all your time and energy to work on the ones you selected.

As to Photo Books, publishers usually print offset (some use the stochastic printing method) and that means heavily reduced colour gamuts which has to be taken into account when preparing images.

Thanks for reading.

[sealonsf]

Hi
Thanks for your kind reaction to my post.

"I'll come back from a 3-week trip with thousands of photos to process so it's a bit overwhelming"
Here is a thought about this you might find, or not as it were, interesting. A bit off topic though.

I know the feeling. In reality however one has to be ruthlessly and selective. Only images which to your eye are worth preserving should be kept.

As to what I do, I select the ones which are good (must have) and some I consider marginal. This alone will be a sizable quantity. The rest I chuck. If I don't do this I will only suffer enormously under the stress to select what I want. Confucius said - "He who has the choice suffers the anguish."

You have to remember this:
You as the creator of all the shots you come home with every image has a strong connection to the moment it was taken, and this includes the bad ones. They too carry memories and emotions just as much as the good ones do. As a consequence you are loath to discard a lot of shots. (Even duplicates, I know, I have been there.) You say, maybe I will use them one day - you never will ! (it is the hoarder principal where the value of things is not the item itself but the fact that you own them. It is the ownership hoarders value not the object.)

But everybody around you who were not with you when the photos were taken are free of this emotional package and they don't miss the photos you just put in the bin. In your presentation or Photo Book they will ever only see the good images and this is all that matters - to you and them.

Weeding out the keepers from the "chaff" with computer programs available these days is actually quite easy and quickly done. I remember in the days of film I spent hours with a magnifying glass over the light box, scratching crosses over the ones I would never consider. (I am still alive and I am not missing anything.)

Now that you have freed yourself of the ballast you can devote all your time and energy to work on the ones you selected.

As to Photo Books, publishers usually print offset (some use the stochastic printing method) and that means heavily reduced colour gamuts which has to be taken into account when preparing images.

Thanks for reading.

I appreciate your thoughts and you make some valid points - the whole emotional attachment to an image is something I struggle with to the point that I've pretty much given up trying to decide which of my images are best. It helps if I sit on them long enough that the attachment diminishes. The photo books I make are for me and the person I traveled with so, I have to admit have sometimes run to 300 pages (only for Africa, but I know - crazy.) But when I'm old and forgetful I'll appreciate those images.

[Tas]

the whole emotional attachment to an image is something I struggle with to the point that I've pretty much given up trying to decide which of my images are best.

I'm the same as you in this, the below are some simple approaches to help work out what images to move forward with.

The Beginner's Guide to Culling and Why We Do It | Fstoppers
How To Choose Your Best Images: Top Tips On Culling Your Photos | SLR Lounge
Photofocus | Culling Photos: Five Tips to Choose Your Best Images

[sealonsf]

I'm the same as you in this, the below are some simple approaches to help work out what images to move forward with.

The Beginner's Guide to Culling and Why We Do It | Fstoppers
How To Choose Your Best Images: Top Tips On Culling Your Photos | SLR Lounge
Photofocus | Culling Photos: Five Tips to Choose Your Best Images

Thanks! I'll take a look.