Previous posts have not generated much response. Due to an overall lack of interest in this exercise we will not be posting more images. If you have questions about your editing, save them for the critique night meetings.
I wanted to submit something for advice that is an interesting challenge (at least for me). I have an underwater photo of an octopus with a couple of legs plunged deep into a bright orange shell. I took the photo in St. John USVI on a vacation visit last year. Here is the challenge, the octopus is an expert at camouflage which is critical to it’s protection and survival. But he also tends to disappear into the background and people viewing the photo often just don’t see him, especially given the distraction of the bright orange shell he is holding. How can the photo be edited to make it a bit easier to see the full picture?
John G has offered this edit:
I decided to try a couple major changes, since the octopus is really well hidden.
Edit offered by M. Flick
I agree that the horizontal view is a better choice. In Lr I selected the background and darkened it, also removing some texture and clarity. I selected the octopus and lightened it, adding also a wee bit of texture and clarity.
Here is a picture I took at Tybee beach on a very overcast day when we were there visiting this winter. As some of you are aware, I am using this as an exercise to try and learn the software capabilities more than anything else. In this particular case, besides trying to punch out the texture of the driftwood, and improve the overexposed sky, I thought it might be a good opportunity to try and remove an item and repair the image around it. I also took a close up the lighthouse to have a better resolution to put back into the image in a better spot. It also allowed me an opportunity to repair parts of that image with the items that were in front of it, before I put it back into the original image.
1) Overall thoughts on the clean up around the lighthouse in both aspects?
2) Should the lighthouse be knocked out of focus a touch to account for depth of field?
3) Also thought a 1:1 aspect ratio worked in this case, but not sure if better still in 4:3 and just cropped as needed?
4) Any other thoughts appreciated as well, as I am using these as examples, so any thoughts are worth trying just to get better using the photo manipulation software.
The icicles hanging from this long rock face caught my attention while on a recent hike. My initial attempt to photograph this scene resulted in the sky being blown out. I metered off the sky for my second attempt but the result was a severe underexposure. My thought was why not try to salvage the shot.
Using Lightroom I made minor adjustments in the Basic Panel except for Shadows (+100) and the Blacks (+77). This was followed by slight adjustments to the HSL Luminance colors (red +25 & orange +67). Adjustments in Detail and Tone Curve were minor.
I did find myself making local adjustments to the rock face, sky, icicles and leaves. My final edit was to remove the tree from the right edge of the original photo.
I would appreciate any input as to what I might have done differently.
Here's a 4th version; cropped like #2, trees brighter like #3. The low, dark clouds are also lighter.
For the images above
Original Rev 1
Rev 2 Rev 3
Here's a photo needing much help. I wouldn't bother except this is the best EMU photo I have.
Situation: In a van, at 50MPH, at deep dusk. EMU's are ~100 yards away.
Camera settings: Maximum Telephoto (600mm), f/4,1/1000 sec, AWB, Auto ISO(1600), Continuous focus.
Original: Dark and very noisy, but focus was pretty good, considering.
Increased Exposure +2.37
Increased Texture, Vibrance and Clarity
White Balance: Increased Temp. from 4.5K to 5.2K
Edited Photo in Topaz Denoise and Sharpen.
Masked facial skin patches and added blue back into skin, which was removed when I adjusted WB.
Used B&W Presets set to Infrared.
Be Blunt. Was it worth the effort? Does anyone have ideas on what I might have done differently in the editing process?
Another trip to Australia to get a good daylight shot, setup on a tripod at 25 yards is not in the cards.
I like the B&W because of the contrast of the grass from the birds. Comments?
Here is another version I attempted after reading the comments.
1) I agree, that the street grounded the image, so I put it back in, and just tried to mask the "newer" items in the image that stuck out for the older concept I was going for. Helped me learn about layer priority as well when I tried replacing a few signs.
2) Since I'm not going back, not much I could do about taking a new picture to help make the buildings more vertical. But the comments helped point out the "transform" function, so I played a little with that as well. Couldn't get perfect, as I ended up just chasing my tail eventually, but do think I was able to improve it a bit without totally losing the fire escapes on the left side, which I really liked.
3) I also, just for fun, tried another aging process on the older buildings. This method kept the color differences, but played with the saturation and shading to try and mimic the older photos that had color but not very deep blacks to them.
4) I also tried creating my own clouds in the area I removed the top of the building in the back. Thought it might help mask the fill of new sky that was hard to blend.
Thanks for the comments. As this was basically an "exercise" to start learning the software, it was useful to point me in the direction to try a few things I didn't even think of at first. Still have a way to go, but it was a decent first step.....John
The 4 versions above
President, Coastal Camera Club