The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Cape Raoul, South East of Hobart. The last few minutes of the setting sun shone through a break in the clouds illuminating the headland as we sailed past. I used a stupidly high ISO to ensure a high shutter speed as I was shooting from a moving platform, the Westerdam, en reute NZ. The photo was very noisy and I am not sure how much of the impressionist look is due to noise control and / or the sea mist. I started to lose detail when using a more intense noise control, resulting in a more impressionistic photo.
Cropped, noise control, levels, haze reduction.
Specific Feedback
Firstly, apologies for a miswritten post - clearly I was not thinking correctly.
I am not sure if I should continue with the first photo - more noise and more detail in the columns or the second, less noise, but microcontrast added to the rock structures and the photo becoming more impressionistic.
Technical Details
ISO 3200, F6.3, 600mm eq, 1/400th sec
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
This is a tricky one Rob, because although severe noise control does result in a loss of detail that is impressionistic, our modern digital processing brains are built to read it as more noise control and less as impressionistic. That was my take viewing the images prior to reading your comments, especially as there is still a lot of color noise in the first version.
Out of curiosity, what were you using for noise control?
John, I have re written parts of the post as I was not thinking clearly. The photos use DXO 8 noise control. I occasionally use Photoshop noise control, but find it more difficult. The image below is the result of various noise type controls I have access to. The top photo is DXO8 deep prime noise control and the second is DXO8 Deep Prime XD / SD2s with extra micro contrast on the rock columns.
Thanks Rob! Boy, that original did have some major noise and I can see why the struggles. I think my preference is for the DXO8 Deep Prime. Do you happen to have Photoshop Lightroom to try the new Denoise? I’d be curious to see what it came up with.
Sorry, I only use PSE and DXO 8. I can post the raw image in the processing area if you wish. The real problem was lack of light due to high shutter speed requirements (moving liner) and the high ISO to get that shutter speed.
Rob
No worries. If you are curious to see what Lightroom would do (I am), I’m happy to give it a whirl if you want to post the raw there. I hear you on the limitations; we all feel that pain at times!
This must have been some sight to see. Lot’s of atmospheric haze (forget about noise for a sec) leading to the soft, almost pastel colors of the cliffs.
I’m really not seeing the noise in these web versions. It’s easiest to see noise in the sky, but I’m not really seeing it.
In terms of preference, I prefer the second one with the added detail/contrast. Personally, I don’t see either as “Impressionistic” since they both depict the cliffs (is that basalt?) realistically. Sure, as one zooms in and pixel-peeps I could understand an impressionistic response.
Hard to say about the noise reduction, only seeing the RAW file like John mentioned, could we really understand what you’re dealing with.
In the end, I’m really enjoying the soft light and colors on the cliffs. No other suggestions really. Thanks for sharing
I have posted the original raw file in the image processing area. The rock structures are indeed Dolerite, a feature of several areas of Tasmania such as Cradle Mountain and Mount Wellington. The columns at Cape Raoul were more extensive prior to around 1900 when the navy used them for target practice.
Maybe I’m not seeing it, but I don’t see the RAW. Did you replace with one of the two originals with the same dimensions? We can take a look at the RAW original, but I’m not finding it.
