One of those shots !

Andrew I have shot at this loaction once and the light was no better . The shot is still on my hard drive and not going anywhere.

The mono doesn't look too bad on my tablet but I will look on my PC.

The mono works IMO.
 
Last edited:
Did a very quick edit on your original jpeg. This is probably as far as id like to push this image. upped vibrance and saturation a healthy amount as you said your preference was a punchy image. Lifted shadows slightly on the right hand side, slight level adjustment.

If your not after critique, then that's fair enough. Perhaps there should be a way of making it clearer on the forum. I dunno. For me, i have to agree that the sky was over processed on the first image. Tbh i do think there are sometimes a right and a wrong in art such as photography.

Sure some people like punchy processing, some push colours to the extreme, and that is a matter of preference, but unless your going for something completely abstract, the point where you have introduced un-natural processing artifacts into the image has got to be incorrect or at least in my opinion poor processing.

Hope that wasn't too much of a un-intelligable ramble

View attachment 17141
 
Last edited:
Ok so I came back for another look as life is too short to bear grudges :p

I've had a go at processing the high res jpeg. Not sure if I've done it to my taste or yours...possibly somewhere in between?
Basically I used photoshop and some plug ins (nik software color efex).
1. Detail extractor plug in for everything except the sky
2. Cloned out the contrails in the sky and also the small distractions in water (lower RHS)
3. Cross balance...'daylight to tungsten' plug in to produce some warm tones (maybe too warm? I can change it back to cooler if preferred).
4. Increased exposure by half a stop
5. Bit of dodging on sky and reflection to add some punch
6. Curves adjustment...linear contrast preset to add more punch

Feel free to tear it to shreds, or alternatively say what you like/don't like.

14801477674_9a091a50cd_o.jpg
 
canon_togger said:
Ok so I came back for another look as life is too short to bear grudges :p

I've had a go at processing the high res jpeg. Not sure if I've done it to my taste or yours...possibly somewhere in between?
Basically I used photoshop and some plug ins (nik software color efex).
1. Detail extractor plug in for everything except the sky
2. Cloned out the contrails in the sky and also the small distractions in water (lower RHS)
3. Cross balance...'daylight to tungsten' plug in to produce some warm tones (maybe too warm? I can change it back to cooler if preferred).
4. Increased exposure by half a stop
5. Bit of dodging on sky and reflection to add some punch
6. Curves adjustment...linear contrast preset to add more punch

Feel free to tear it to shreds, or alternatively say what you like/don't like.

14801477674_9a091a50cd_o.jpg
Click to expand...

To be honest i like it, still has the punch of the original with a toned down sky. The boathouse looks a little overly red-orange now that would be my only change. It is not that far off what i originally published and a damn site better than the camera jpeg so well done and thank you.
 
3 good edits there!
 
canon_togger said:
Ok so I came back for another look as life is too short to bear grudges :p

I've had a go at processing the high res jpeg. Not sure if I've done it to my taste or yours...possibly somewhere in between?
Basically I used photoshop and some plug ins (nik software color efex).
1. Detail extractor plug in for everything except the sky
2. Cloned out the contrails in the sky and also the small distractions in water (lower RHS)
3. Cross balance...'daylight to tungsten' plug in to produce some warm tones (maybe too warm? I can change it back to cooler if preferred).
4. Increased exposure by half a stop
5. Bit of dodging on sky and reflection to add some punch
6. Curves adjustment...linear contrast preset to add more punch

Feel free to tear it to shreds, or alternatively say what you like/don't like.

14801477674_9a091a50cd_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Oooh, now this edit I really like! Fixes the wrong feeling about the sky and it's reflection.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
To be honest i like it, still has the punch of the original with a toned down sky. The boathouse looks a little overly red-orange now that would be my only change. It is not that far off what i originally published and a damn site better than the camera jpeg so well done and thank you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, the red/orange will be from warming it up a bit and is easily corrected. I'd also have slightly less saturation as a personal preference.
 
A grad in this instance would have been tricky, possibly a 1 or 2 stop soft grad at an angle would have helped but you'd probably still need another shot exposing for the RHS.
Do you use live view on the 5D3 for landscapes?
 
I use live view when its darker normally just the normal viewfinder for daylight , due to shooting so many weddings all the time my shooting style is almost habitually hand held and fast ! i have to slow myself down when out doing landscapes.

Off to a wedding now in fact so will catch up with the thread tonight or tmrw. Happy to take on board any tips for shooting landscapes especially from 5D3 peeps, tend to use the 35 f2 is or 24 2.8 is when doing those. I have the usual cokin filter system with full and nd grads and cp etc

thanks
Andy

wedding photographer north east and yorkshire
 
Never like the cokin grads, I have them but find they have a magenta tinge, especially bad when stacked. I have some 120mm gels from film camera work - quite a lot actually. I've done stuff like this before cutting up a gel to fit the sky. Hold it in front of you, trim to shape, hold over the lens by hand.
 
ST4 said:
IMHO that's lovely and should give the OP inspiration to shoot here when the light is kinder
Click to expand...

There are a variety of ways to shoot it. I did it as a slightly dark mono which got fairly well received in some spots but the fact remains that the version people actually want to buy is the bright cheerful version that the OP posted. It might not be to everyones taste but people tend to buy instantly recognisable shots that remind them of their favourite places.

My dull version

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_lj/7213942274/

I wouldn't do the spot at sunset. I don't think the conditions/placement suit it.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
No there isnt, you capture light as you want to and portray it as you want to. If you want to wander round the world with a histogram and thirds drawn across your eyeballs then feel free. Personally i like to make my own decisions.

And actually it WAS there to begin with, our eyes have a much wider dynamic range than the single shot from the camera as you well know and all i have done is push it a little past what i saw.
Click to expand...

Very well put. I think you've hit the nail on the head there
 
Lee O'D said:
Very well put. I think you've hit the nail on the head there
Click to expand...

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
Click to expand...

Credit: Hans Christian Andersen :D
 
Eljay said:
There are a variety of ways to shoot it. I did it as a slightly dark mono which got fairly well received in some spots but the fact remains that the version people actually want to buy is the bright cheerful version that the OP posted. It might not be to everyones taste but people tend to buy instantly recognisable shots that remind them of their favourite places.

My dull version

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_lj/7213942274/

I wouldn't do the spot at sunset. I don't think the conditions/placement suit it.
Click to expand...
I like your version. It's a bit different. Certainly not dull, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
the photo of the acrylic still looks like a light outline on the hills :D
However Acrylics have that great ability to add vibrancy and punch. Who printed it for you?
 
Byker28i said:
the photo of the acrylic still looks like a light outline on the hills :D
However Acrylics have that great ability to add vibrancy and punch. Who printed it for you?
Click to expand...

Whitewall printed it and its outstanding quality , just the UPS people that keep breaking them are the issue !

The faint outline over the hills is not something that bothers me.
 
I use Whitewall and am very impressed either quality. The lead times can be an issue though if you need it in a hurry
 
Im going to stay out of the whole heated discussion bit but as a critique my view would be that there are two elements to the photo and individually they are both pleasing to the eye. Together i dont know which one to look at as the composition for me has the foreground arguing with the sky. its to 50/50 for me. In my own opinion i would have gone for more of one or the other. Most likely the foreground as its more of an important part of the story in the image. Thats just my view from and critique. Other than that. nice pic.
 
Having only just come across this thread I believe the problem for the OP was that the original unprocessed image was soooo drab. Marie has done a far better job at processing it - in my opinion - but even so some of the techniques she has used seem ....well.....a little bit advanced........

In my opinion not in a million years would the experienced landscape photographer have taken that image. For most people the objective would be to get it right, as far as possible, in camera. Once you have done that the image is far easier to process and you can do so without going to the extremes that were necessary here.

In one of the photographs I posted here I mentioned that I'd processed it quite hard to give it an air of unreality (but nowhere near as hard as Marie has done on this image....!) I received quite a few compliments on what I had done. But the skills involved in bringing a RAW image back to reality or to enhance it just a tad are not recognised because they are not obvious. In my opinion that is how it should be.

However if Andrew has made that much money in such a short time he must be producing something that people are willing to pay good money for. He certainly has a high opinion of his own work and maybe that has helped him to become so successful.
 
Its all a matter of opinion at the end of the day , viewing your own work imho there is nothing that really stands out to me as anything special landscape wise that an average landscape tog would not have taken in their early days. That though is the beauty of photography everything is seen by everybody in different ways. I have an experienced knack of producing work that sells to people not photographers ;) p.s as mentioned in the thread i make the lions share of my money on weddings and probably about 10-15% on landscapes. What you see as a perfect landscape ( and you are not in a position to speak for all experienced landscape photographers ) is your own view, don't mistake it for everyone elses. I have been shooting landscapes for 20 years and yes i could go back on the perfect day and take an hour to take the shot , would it be any better than the one I took , who knows ? but i was there took the shot and i am happy with it. No doubt i will sell some of it but as i was there on a different job thats not really important. It gives me joy to see it on my wall whilst i sit editing all day and that to me is more important.
 
jerry12953 said:
"yes i could go back on the perfect day and take an hour to take the shot , would it be any better than the one I took , who knows"

Without a shadow of a doubt....yes it could well have been. That's what landscape photographers do!
Click to expand...

Once again unfounded assumptions , not all Landscape photographers feel the need to revisit a location again and again and it may OR may not have been better on a return visit, a matter of opinion. If you are just going to push your own views as you are doing then you are not leaving yourself open to new avenues of exploration. Personally i would rather go somewhere new and capture something i haven't seen before, than keep returning to one spot because i am blinded to the possibility of anything but the perfect histogram being a good shot.
 
I actually really like this picture and know the place well. I am not experienced enough in the processing world to appreciate what many others are finding but as a picture I really love it.
 
Jim Everiss said:
I actually really like this picture and know the place well. I am not experienced enough in the processing world to appreciate what many others are finding but as a picture I really love it.
Click to expand...

Thank you , that someone likes it is all that matters :) your not supposed to view a photo and worry about its processing your meant to enjoy it ( or not as the case may be )
 
If your going to bother with "Honey pot" locations then you may as well do some planning for light direction as Pork captured.

Pork said:
I've shot the boat house to death, and used a 3 stop soft grad on its side. :)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulsflickr/13186413424/
Click to expand...

I've driven past this spot numerous times and not bothered because the light was in the wrong direction and it's been done to death, obviously your happy with the result so thats all that matters.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Thank you , that someone likes it is all that matters :) your not supposed to view a photo and worry about its processing your meant to enjoy it ( or not as the case may be )
Click to expand...
absolutely this. I have a pano on my wall that technically has one rather large fault but I love the picture regardless for others reasons.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
Once again unfounded assumptions , not all Landscape photographers feel the need to revisit a location again and again and it may OR may not have been better on a return visit, a matter of opinion. If you are just going to push your own views as you are doing then you are not leaving yourself open to new avenues of exploration. Personally i would rather go somewhere new and capture something i haven't seen before, than keep returning to one spot because i am blinded to the possibility of anything but the perfect histogram being a good shot.
Click to expand...

If I see the potential in a shot then I see no issues with continuing to return in an attempt to capture it in optimum conditions. It doesn't stop me from looking for new locations.

Unfortunately I've returned to some spots on a number of occasions before finally catching it in perfect conditions only to find the shot was pants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top