pinksky

[trog100]

one of several attempts to get it right.. not sure about the results.. he he

trog

[trog100]

another one.. same place same time..



trog

[MB1]

Both images are too blue.

I like the top one somewhat more than the other but I suggest that you experiment with the white balance until the hull in the first image looks white. I suspect that if you do that the sky will get a lot more colorful.

[freygr]

Both images are too blue.

I like the top one somewhat more than the other but I suggest that you experiment with the white balance until the hull in the first image looks white. I suspect that if you do that the sky will get a lot more colorful.

I hope trog100 does't mind. Here is his photo, with saturation upped and color balance ajusted. I do like the subject but a little post processing some times helps.

[trog100]

yes the "enhanced" version looks impressive.. he he

the boat hulls really were coloured and somehow the pictures lose some appeal being downsized and against the white forum background.. the white balance does reflect the scene but in the picture it does look like its off..

i know i shouldnt but i always feel i am cheating with post processing.. but the pic with a little help does look a thousand times better than the one without it.. he he

trog

[Ronnoco]

The problem with your edit, freygr, is that it adds noise to the sky and an obviously artificial green colour also to the sky as well. You need to keep the colour looking natural or at least believable while you improve it and you need to also keep the noise down.
This is best done by either using software filters, channel mixers, or other methods that involve less overall saturation. Selective improvement could also be done to the sky while keeping the boats a more balanced natural colour.

Ronnoco

[trog100]

the two pics by the way are exactly as left the camera except for downsizing.. 1/15 of a second at F 4.5 iso 400.. pentax K100d dslr.. tamron 18-200 walk around lens..

to be honest i am not overly keen (apart from the odd sharpen) on the cropping or otherwise enhancing proccess that seems to be standard form.. i like them to be vaguely right as they leave the camera..

i know any image can be artifically improved.. but i never know where to draw the line which is probably why i dont do much post proccessing.. he he.. or shoot everything in raw..

trog

[Ronnoco]

the two pics by the way are exactly as left the camera except for downsizing.. 1/15 of a second at F 4.5 iso 400.. pentax K100d dslr.. tamron 18-200 walk around lens..

to be honest i am not overly keen (apart from the odd sharpen) on the cropping or otherwise enhancing proccess that seems to be standard form.. i like them to be vaguely right as they leave the camera..

i know any image can be artifically improved.. but i never know where to draw the line which is probably why i dont do much post proccessing.. he he.. or shoot everything in raw..

trog

The eye sees a greater colour range than film and film records a greater colour range than digital. So, straight out of the digital camera you get greater contrast but less colour range and limited quality in transitions from one shade to another. You also get less detail in the highlight and shadow areas.

The result is to get closer to what the eye saw at the time, post-processing is absolutely necessary to get closer in colour, detail, quality and exposure. Improvement is somewhat of a misnomer in that it means improvement over an as-shot photo, but not an improvement over what your eye saw at the time. It is for example impossible to bring out through post-processing, image information that was not there in the first place.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

I sort of like the blue/violet originals. But I gravitate torwards blue anyway.

I think the bottom shot is better with some of the sky cropped out. Just too much negative space as is. But try adding a moon, it might help. I tried it here but it looks a bit fake.. I ain't no PP expert.

-GB

[trog100]

here is another full frame shot zoomed in a little..

sometimes i have seem a large pink moon low in the sky.. i have always wondered quite why it looks so big.. i cant fault ronnocos comment about giving the camera a little help so as to make the pic more like the eye really saw..

but when does "capturing the moment" turn into "inventing the moment".. a little too often i think.. he he

one thing i promise.. if i post a picture it will be pretty much as it came from the camera.. even if the pic dosnt compare well to a photoshop special.. he he

trog

[GB1]

Trog - I sort of take the approach you do, where I'm more interested in shooting the shot and then letting someone else do the post-processing. But I think that moderate PPing is ok. Not a whole lot of difference between that and what they used to do in custom photo labs with dodging and burning.

Adding things like the moon is probably going to another level, however....

[trog100]

he he he.. tis quite amusing when u think about it.. when i look at the added moon i keep visualizing a witch going past on a broomstick.. anything is possible isnt it..

trog