Breaking Trail

[grouseking]

On an otherwise ho-hum day, there is something about this pic I like.



Suggestions please.

grouseking

 

[adktyler]

I know very little about photography and all the details and such that go along with it. But I really like these "candid" pics of hiking! The entire thing looks kind of spotty. I don't know if this is because of the definition quality, or an affect on the camera/editing software, but it looks pretty cool to me!

 

[nartreb]

I like the composition, and the exposure is good - snow scenes are tough. The unobtrusive splash of snow from the back of the snowshoes is just right for my taste - doesn't become the focus of the shot, just a little detail to reward viewers who are paying attention.

One thing to watch for is the position of the hiker relative to the background. It's not a major distraction, but you do have a case of arbor cephali - a tree apparently growing out of somebody's head. If you can wait until the area directly behind the hiker is whiter and less cluttered, his/her outline will stand out more clearly, making for a more dramatic shot.

(You can also refuse to hike with anybody who's not wearing bright red...)

 

[Grumpy]

I pretty much agree with what's been said so far by ADK88 and nartreb.

And I do like the photo very much.

It does seem to me that the image may have been somewhat oversharpened -- which can gives it that "spotty" look alluded to above.

G.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I pretty much agree with what's been said so far by ADK88 and nartreb.

And I do like the photo very much.

It does seem to me that the image may have been somewhat oversharpened -- which can gives it that "spotty" look alluded to above.

G.

The original full size image on webshots looks better, imho.

 

[David Metsky]

It does seem to me that the image may have been somewhat oversharpened -- which can gives it that "spotty" look alluded to above.

That's what I came to say. Dialing back on the sharpening would give the image a friendlier feel.

 

[grouseking]

For the first time, I'm attempting to really edit pictures, to try to spruce them up. That pic was one of the first that I've tried to sharpen. It looked good at regular size, but when you decrease the size, it doesn't look nearly as good.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. With all the great photographers on here, it means a lot.

 

[kmorgan]

For the first time, I'm attempting to really edit pictures, to try to spruce them up. That pic was one of the first that I've tried to sharpen. It looked good at regular size, but when you decrease the size, it doesn't look nearly as good.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. With all the great photographers on here, it means a lot.

If you're using Photoshop, change from RGB to LAB mode, then select the Lightness channel and sharpen that. This gives the best results.

You can then convert back to RGB.

Kevin

 

[Grumpy]

I endorse Kevin's comment on sharpening procedure in Photoshop.

Both brightness and contrast also can be tweaked in the Lab Color, Lightness channel, with excellent results.

G.

 

[NeoAkela]

I've found the same thing with sharpening an image prior to reducing it in size to post in a forum - the sharpening does not translate well to the reduction and comes out looking spotty, where the original full-size photo looks fine.

I've never used Lab Color mode, so that is great advice from Kevin and Grumpy - can't wait to test it out!

 

[DougPaul]

I've found the same thing with sharpening an image prior to reducing it in size to post in a forum - the sharpening does not translate well to the reduction and comes out looking spotty, where the original full-size photo looks fine.

Seems to me that I have seen recommendations that one downsample before sharpening.

An article on preparing images for the web: http://ronbigelow.com/articles/web-images/web-images.htm

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

One thing to remember about sharpening -- or any other image modification work on digital images is this:

Always preserve an original file of the image as it came from the camera or scanner.

One way to do this is to immediately make a duplicate copy of the original images on a CD, DVD or hard drive, and leave it alone.

When you start working on tweaking your images, open each image file as a copy. This automatically leaves the original undisturbed when you save the modified image file.

A riskier method is to open the original image file, make your modifications and then -- using the file>"save as" option -- save the modified image using a new file name. The original will stay intact. Don't goof this up, though, because if you inadvertently just hit "save" or "close and save changes" the modified image will replace the original.

The idea is to make sure you can go back to square one if it turns out you don't like the changes.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

Always preserve an original file of the image as it came from the camera or scanner.

Agreed.

I write-protect my originals. Makes it a bit harder to erase or alter them...

Doug

 

[grouseking]

Original Photo

I don't use photoshop, because I haven't read the directions with it, and it just looks difficult. For now, what I use is just fine. Its Windows Live Photo Gallery. There is a simple editing function on it, where you can "auto adjust" the pic and usually makes it the pic look much better. Sometimes it doesn't improve it, but I'd say 80 percent of the time, it makes it look better. My favorite part of the editor is that you can "revert back to original." I'm not sure if you can do that with photoshop. So for now I'm sticking with a simple editing tool.

The original pic I posted was auto adjusted and then sharpened. It was the first time I've ever tried to sharpen.

Now its time to "revert back to the original." no touch ups or anything....



Now, with auto adjust....




grouseking

 

[DougPaul]

I don't use photoshop, because I haven't read the directions with it, and it just looks difficult. For now, what I use is just fine. Its Windows Live Photo Gallery. There is a simple editing function on it, where you can "auto adjust" the pic and usually makes it the pic look much better. Sometimes it doesn't improve it, but I'd say 80 percent of the time, it makes it look better. My favorite part of the editor is that you can "revert back to original." I'm not sure if you can do that with photoshop. So for now I'm sticking with a simple editing tool.

Any such automatic processings assume some set of picture characteristics, some set of display parameters, and some appropriate amount of processing as guessed by the author of the software and, of course, not all images fit these assumptions and the author's chosen processing may not fit your goals. By all means try them, but check them and be ready to do something else if they don't improve your image.

The original pic I posted was auto adjusted and then sharpened. It was the first time I've ever tried to sharpen.

IMO it is very easy to overdo enhancements such as sharpening and color enhancement. These tend to have an immediate wow factor but can make an image look noisy or artificial if overdone. IMO, they are best used gently enough that it is not obvious that they have been used.

Now its time to "revert back to the original." no touch ups or anything....
Now, with auto adjust....

Unfortunately, webshots does not allow us to download the original file so we cannot see the image in its original scaling.

Doug

 

[grouseking]

Special Thanks to Kmorgan!

He played with the image on photoshop, and came up with this finished product.

I like it.



grouseking

 

[forestgnome]

Nice composition . Agree with comments about overdoing the sharpening.