Old 12-07-2008, 06:19 PM   #1
UNDPilot
Member
 
UNDPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA/MI
Posts: 63
Default Selectively editing the sky

I was reading in Popular Photography some new ways to edit the sky and correct for what I've screwed up with the camera. Getting the sky right is usually my biggest problem right now. I have attached two photos with the original and the edit. The basic editing technique I got from a powerpoint attached to this article:

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...x-the-sky.html

I had to do a few things different because I have PSE and not PS, but the basic idea is the same.

I would like your opinions on the photos (too much? is it noticable? etc.)

-Wes
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BNSF 2124o.jpg
Views:	143
Size:	398.6 KB
ID:	3567   Click image for larger version

Name:	BNSF 2124e.jpg
Views:	122
Size:	419.3 KB
ID:	3568   Click image for larger version

Name:	NS 8968o.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	347.4 KB
ID:	3569   Click image for larger version

Name:	NS 8968e.jpg
Views:	151
Size:	398.8 KB
ID:	3570  
__________________
RailPictures.net photos http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=18763

RRPictureArchives.net photos http://wblanton.rrpicturearchives.net

Personal Rail Photo Website http://wesrail.myjalbum.net/Main
UNDPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 07:55 PM   #2
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

The BNSF looked better than the NS one. In the NS shot, the upper left (where the sky meets the wire and the trees) doesn't look quite right.

But, that looks like an interesting technique to adjust the sky. I may have to try it, but I prefer to use a curves adjustment layer with a layer mask...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 12:34 AM   #3
UNDPilot
Member
 
UNDPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VA/MI
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
The BNSF looked better than the NS one. In the NS shot, the upper left (where the sky meets the wire and the trees) doesn't look quite right.

But, that looks like an interesting technique to adjust the sky. I may have to try it, but I prefer to use a curves adjustment layer with a layer mask...

Yeah I thought that too, I think it would work better in PS, i don't have the same selection tools as in the tutorial.
__________________
RailPictures.net photos http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=18763

RRPictureArchives.net photos http://wblanton.rrpicturearchives.net

Personal Rail Photo Website http://wesrail.myjalbum.net/Main
UNDPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 12:38 AM   #4
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Does that cross the line of over manipulation?
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 01:40 AM   #5
Ken Carr
Senior Member: Vegasrails
 
Ken Carr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Henderson Nevada
Posts: 285
Default

That's for Admin to decide but I do recall a photographer who use to belong to this site his photos were removed for changing things. What caught my attention was I had shot the same locomotive under cloudy skies and this person took a shot a few minutes earlier and his shot showed lovely blue skies. what other changes he made to his photos I do not know...Ken
__________________
Regional Coordinator for Operation Lifesaver
Southern Nevada and Southern Utah

See what I do for fun along the rails and in the desert

See some of my slide shows


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Ken Carr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 01:32 PM   #6
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fladung
Does that cross the line of over manipulation?
No. As long as you're not adding / removing clouds, there's nothing wrong with selectively adjusting contrast / saturation / etc. Many, many of us do that on a regular basis.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:33 AM   #7
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose
No. As long as you're not adding / removing clouds, there's nothing wrong with selectively adjusting contrast / saturation / etc. Many, many of us do that on a regular basis.
Guilty.
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:41 AM   #8
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose
No. As long as you're not adding / removing clouds...
But removing wires or other similar items is wrong, right Nick?
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:58 AM   #9
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
But removing wires or other similar items is wrong, right Nick?
Only if you do it in real life
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 02:00 AM   #10
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose
Only if you do it in real life
The roads are slippery now so you would have a good excuse...
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 04:52 AM   #11
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B.
The roads are slippery now so you would have a good excuse...
That's true, although I don't know how well the Focus would do against a utility pole.

What are we talking about again?
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2008, 02:44 PM   #12
Cinderpath
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ferndale, MI (Detroit area)
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fladung
Does that cross the line of over manipulation?
I don't think so at all, it is not replacing, or adding data, rather modifying what the camera has already created, closer to what the eye-observed.
Cinderpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2008, 03:34 PM   #13
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

I used to do that, don't do that anymore. I can't believe how little I've been called out over this immensely popular photo:
Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 178093
Photograph © Matthew Hicks

I really should go back and re-edit it. (Or de-edit, as the case may be)
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2008, 03:40 PM   #14
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath
I don't think so at all, it is not replacing, or adding data, rather modifying what the camera has already created, closer to what the eye-observed.
That would be fine if that's what actually happens all the time. Often times people make the sky look better than it actually did (Joe Blue for example).
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2008, 04:46 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I used to do that, don't do that anymore. I can't believe how little I've been called out over this immensely popular photo:
Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 178093
Photograph © Matthew Hicks

I really should go back and re-edit it. (Or de-edit, as the case may be)
Hey, I called you out on it in the comments section.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CPmountains1.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	189.3 KB
ID:	3599  
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.