The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
This is a re-edited image, first one is here Coyne Pond
working on getting better on my processing , tried to fix the flaws and bring back to natural.
hope you like this one better
Specific Feedback
looking for mostly processing problems, but any critique is welcome
Technical Details
Canon 7D , Canon S10-22 lens at 22mm, ISO 100, f11
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
This is potentially a very lovely scene but honestly, I think this is not optimal for a 7D file. Did you go back to the raw file or make more adjustments on the earlier image? Can you outline your processing steps in detail? Was the original a raw file or a JPEG? What software was used. Was the original over or underexposed or poorly focused?
It could help to post the original raw file with no adjustments other than the profile. (Some choice needs to be made for it in order to go from the raw data to an image.)
I see it is not at all sharp and you have tried things to compensate that just don’t work. (Nothing will, really. So-called sharpening is highly overrated.) There may be some salvation and if I have time I’ll have a closer look. Meantime, I’d suggest you try again, watching things at 100% and going for gentle tonal improvements. Think toothpicks instead of hammers.
There is just no substitute for a good file to start with, but we all have misses of good opportunities and sometimes you can make a good image that lives with the flaws instead of trying to patch them over.
I agree with Diane that this is not sharp at all. Where was your focus point? At f/11 you could have had the trees sharp; maybe not the closest foreground water, but since there’s nothing detailed in the water, it didn’t need to be super in focus. And sharpening it won’t help (and is overrated as Diane said).
I took a crack at an edit with a more “natural” look. Here’s what I did:
In Camera Raw
raised just the darks a bit (to lighten the trees) and lowered the lights just a little (so nothing would blow out in subsequent steps)
raised the vibrance a touch (not something I normally do, but I think you like a bit more color pop than I)
reduced the blue a bit because increasing the vibrance made the blue a bit unnatural looking
added a tiny bit of sharpening
In Photoshop
rotated it -1 degree (the water line looked tilted to me)
to increase the contrast, dodged just the lights in the trees and a bit in the water, then burned the midtones and darks in the sky (to bring out the clouds more). I find that burning/dodging to increase contrast works better than sliding a contrast slider for an image with gentle colors. It’s more work, but I think it looks more realistic in the end.
added a VERY gentle S curve to increase the contrast a touch more (again, because you seem to like a more dramatic look).
This sounds like a lot of work, but it really wasn’t. You had wonderful light, so the original file had a nice look from the start. I’d be interested to know what you think of this edit. It’s quite different from your previous versions but (it seems to me) looks more “natural” and like your RAW file. Is that what you meant by making it more “natural”?
I was just working on the raw file when I went back to look at your posted version and saw @Bonnie_Lampley’s version – it is a very nice improvement. I got a similar result. I also trued to pull more drama from the sky but you have a limited dynamic range with an older sensor so I did a virtual copy and a second raw conversion with lower exposure and a little more saturation. I opened both and layered them in PS and used a TK mask to block out the darker trees in the lower exposure version. Quick and dirty and it can be done more carefully.
Looking at the raw file I totally agree with your crop and straightening. The water line is a bit of a quandary – I lined up the edges of the tree on the right and its reflection so they were vertical, but I will go with cheating on that if there are optical illusions to mollify.
Have another go at it and forget sharpening. I brought up a little pseudo-sharpening with the Texture and Clarity sliders
And here’s a step to darken sky and water that isn’t in the edit above – I was too sloppy with it and no time to go back and clean up the mask to cut it out of the trees.
And of course you could go much darker with the midtones to make the sky more dramatic and probably be able to stop short of crushing blacks. Believe the histogram, not a monitor. And I was in a hurry and forgot to denoise. Topaz Denoise with the Low Light setting at default brought up a little more definition in the leaves. I’ve posted it above. I neglected to increase contrast on the mask and it got into the trees and flattened out their tones so I’ll leave that step, or however you want to work on the sky, up to you. It’s a much nicer image than I would have thought from your early edits. Easy does it.
Beautiful colors and setting here Hank. I love what @Diane_Miller and @Bonnie_Lampley have done with this. It is amazing what can be done with post processing techniques.
But that impact is from a dark exposure and that can be added after a good file is obtained, rather than going for the drama first and finding it has compromised the basic underlying image.
Your initial sky and water are very nice, it’s just the trees that got trashed.
Here is my last version with an additional dose of magic Glamour Glow and some darkening with a Curves (just pulling down the middle), then the sky selected and darkened further with a curve as shown. Had to paint over part of the initial selection mask to keep from darkening the bare trees that protruded into the sky.
