[Pavel]

This photo has been fixed up a lot in photoshop. I pulled up a fair amount of detail of Palermo and controled the highlights. Colours are enhanced, but not realy fake either. This is by far my most ambicious and difficult project in CS3 and technique comments are extremely welcome. I updated this post by including my old Lightroom version and the origianal raw - just cropped fro comparioson to aid the critique of my Photoshop technique. Thanks Pavel




And here is my old previous Lightroom version



And finally the original

[blowup]

Hello Pavel,
I agree that this is an ambitious project you've undertaken. I've liked this photo since the time I saw the LR version. The new revision is much more adventurous, and the colors in the sky are definitely "painterly", even Fauvist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauvism). One thing that bothers me in the new composition is the blue/violet cast that dominates the land area and city. Even the buildings that, I'm sure, are white, have a blue tinge. You note that the colors are "not really fake", so maybe that is the color you saw. But, I wonder if you could pull out even more interesting colors in the land area, by adjusting it in a separate layer (?).

Keep on experimenting.

Gary

[Pavel]

Thanks Gary for reviewing my photo. I am always torn between reflecting the reality in the photo and reflecting what I felt when I looked at the scene. Clearly, I did not "see" the RAW image. The LR version is sloser, but Palermo, the large part of the photo seems dull and lifeless and if that is what I "saw", I would not have tken the photo the way I did. I wanted to tease out some details and highlights out of the city. Since I do not really know what I am doing, many layers later, I did get details and highlights.

When it came to colours, I remeber dramatic colours in the sky. If I had red in the sky (which was my choice, admittedly by teasing it out), I flet that I have to leave some of it on the ground. The versions without it (white) looked jarringly doctored, because they did not fit with the sky. When in Moreale, I do not remeber seing white, as the shadow was deep. Having the entire photo red would not work. I wanted to reflect the situation that night is almost there. Gray did not work for me (see RAW) and it did not go with the vividness of the photo. Blue to me symbolizes night (and cold). Do you wish to play with one of the JPEGs to show me what you mean? I could have replaced blue with some other colour, but the cast would be there. My first adjustment version using "selective colour" produced white buildings.

Thanks for comment Gary. I am not dissagreing with you Gary, I am just giving you some Idea how my thinking went. You say that you would have prefered another colour to blue and red, but I think that what you are really meaning is that you think the buildings should have natural colour. I did achieve that but it did not look right. Perhaps if you showed me what you mean?

Pavel

[NT73]

This is just an oblong selection ( 20 pix feathering) of the bottom quarter and I have used levels on R G & B and then moved the centre slider on green and blue and (a little bit of red channel first) to gauge the amount of brightness.
It shows how much detail you have in the photo to start with.
Selecting the bits you want to change is the key.

[blowup]

from Gary:
Wow! NT that is great! And thanks for the description - I'll have to experiment with this. This is what I was what I thought might be possible, when I wrote my critique, but I don't know that I would have figured out how to do it, myself.

By the way, Pavel, I was carping about the blue foreground. I like the red sky!

[Pavel]

Thank you NT, this is incredibly helpful and I am really greatful. I am posting a revised photo based on your suggestion. I am not sure which version I prefer, but the fact is that I did not have the skills to do what you suggested. Which version do you prefer? The #1 or this one? Gary, if you see this, what do you think? Thank you guys. Pavel

[NT73]

Halfway between the two may be better. (Needs a bit of blue to blend with the distant haze)
Some kind of graduation between the extremes. But I ain't figured that one out yet. :/
But we all like different things so dont treat my suggestion as gospel.

[Pavel]

Thank you NT, Gary for comments and advice. I am happier with this photo than with my previous versions. In the process, I learned something from you NT and I appreciate your help. Pavel

[matthew]

Personally, I have to say that I'm not a fan of the strong colour, but I do like the way the foreground has been brought out. But in a less subjective note, you might want to check the horizon. It looks a little bit tilted to me.

[Pavel]

Thanks Matthew. I am torn about colours. I often like strong ones, but often I like a more natural treatment too. I agree that this one is a bit over the top, but I admit I like it here.
In terms of the horizon, I am not sure I know which direction is the tilt. I do not see any part which could serve as a horizontal line. The buildings are low, and so it is hard to tell, but I do not see them as leaning. Pavel

[matthew]

Hi Pavel;

I went back to the original version and used a couple of brightness/contrast layers to bring out the horizon a bit. (The water at the far left of the frame doesn't appear to have land behind it.) I found a 1.4 degree clockwise rotation looked about right to my eye.

[Pavel]

Thanks Matthew, I really appreciate that you took the time to do this. I will correct the photo before I use it for anything, but I will not repost it. How did you notice by the way? Something in my brain makes me blind to the horizontality and I have been repeatedly criticised for that. Thanks again for noticing and for taking time to show me. Pavel

[matthew]

Never a problem - and leveling is just a 'thing' I have. I like photographs with strong and square geometry, I'm really picky about optical distortion from my lenses, and use grid screens on my two "good" cameras. On the other hand, I'm really bad at colour accuracy.

(I'm really picky about cupboard doors and drawers being left open, too - it's just a quirk.)

[NT73]

Trouble is when you level it the blue comes back.

[Zig]

Nice shot.
I would have suggested maybe doing some kind of HDR from raw, as these grads and garish colours can get a a little out of hand.
I've had a wee tweak with some dodge and burn...dunno if this adds or detracts:

[Pavel]

Zig, Thank you for taking time to show me, rather than just tell me. Your colours look a lot more life-like and the contrast is very well controled and your photo feels calm and natural. I hear what both you and Matthew are telling me - stop screwing up with those insane colours - it does not work. Well, half of me agrees with you and I am torn. On the other hand, I am like a kid with a new toy and I want to try where different approaches get me. When I took this photo, I was drawn to the red in the sky and and the bluish shadows of the city. I liked how the two colours blended and I wanted to show it in a dramatic way. Also, I am new to CS3 and I am still amazed at what it can do, even if I experimented with very few features of it. I still do not know what to do with it and what I like. I do not fundamentaly beleive that photos of landscape need to be realistic, any more than paintings need to copy nature, yet despite from deviation from reality, such photos could capturethe "essence" of nature. Also, I see the RAW file as an engineering feat of mapping signals from the sensor to the colours and theere are different interpretations of colours advanced by different companies, particularly on the JPEG level, where the product is supposed to be "final". Since the sensor can not detect the range of colours or the dynamic range a human eye can and there is no stereo vision, the mapping is by definition somewhat arbitrary anyway. Half of me finds my current photos as vulgar and tasteless, but half of me likes the eyeball-scorching colours. So do not think of me as a lost cause, I think that over some time I will get a better understanding of what I want to achieve and I may develop better skills to get there. I hope that you will continue to advise me, even if I do not necessarily always follow your advice, at least not immediatelly.

I have made a couple of half-harted attempts to use photomatix 3.0 to produce HDR iamges from 1 to 7 RAW images, but I did not get anything close to what I wanted. Do you have suggestions for "initial parameter setting" I tried both the blending approach and the local contrast approach. I understand the theory and the sequence of how to load images, get the 32 bit composite and how to obtain a tone-mapped 16 bit image and how to get the image into Photoshop. I read about the parameters and what they mean, but I did not get anything I liked even remotely. I can see, how HDR could help with an image like this, but my previous attempts did not produce even remotely natural images. I particularly hated the halos. Thanks for any advice. Pavel

[Zig]

Yes mate, those darn haloes with Photomatix! I loathe them too Pavel!
I've found they can be minimised by not letting the dynamic range get too wide, and ensuring that one makes full use of the fact that sensors retain more highlight detail than shadows...and it's trial and error then. I've had some Photomatix ones that have been good, but others that have been completely naff.
I don't want to add to burdens or advise a steeper leaning curve, but it could be investigating contrast-masking and/or the Orton technique...on the othr hand, I'd also say get out of CS for a while, take some pics you like, meter sensibly and enjoy yourself

[Pavel]

Thank you Zig, I read about contrast masking. Wow! this is interesting! I will try it on one of my photos, and post, if it works out.

I also noted your get a life comment. I actually take some photos outdoor at least once every week (it seems to be almost permanenetly overcast this year) and on good weeks cycle 60 to 100 km (1 mile = 1.6 km) For a ~ 60 year old fart, that is not so bad, I say.

[Zig]

60?!
My error: you have the exuberance of a man some 55 years your junior.

Matthew or Keith tried educating me in kilometres, but I'm still working in shillings to the gallon in my head, I reckon.

[Pavel]

Thank you Zig, (I think?). Pavel