Stormy Sunset

[Dan Cope]

The power of the editing tools that are available is truly amazing! I’m still learning how to do it and make things look “right”. Of course, “right” is often a matter of opinion. I fall somewhere in between the diehard “Make-it-look-just-the-way-you-saw-it” approach and the “Make-it-look-how-you-wish-it-looked” approach of simply using a photo as a foundation to express your artistic ability. We’ve all seen amazing photos that were a long way from what the original shot looked like. I like a photo that looks “real” but at the same time I don’t necessarily feel compelled to keep it exactly “as it was” if I can make improvements to make the photo more pleasing to look at. With all that in mind, I thought I’d share a photo I took last week along with my approach to editing and get your feedback. I was driving through Pipestem State Park in southern WV on a stormy evening when I noticed that a brilliant sunset was developing. I drove to an overlook and started taking pictures. I took several exposures of this composition, thinking I would merge them for an HDR image. When I got to looking at them in LR, I decided to see what I could do with one single exposure. As you can see, this shot was severely underexposed in the foreground, but the sky was still somewhat overexposed and did not reveal the brilliant colors that were there. First I added a graduated filter in LR to balance the exposure. I also brought up the shadows, reduced the highlights and added some contrast along with a +10 on both the vibrance and saturation sliders. Then I opened the file in PS. With a color balance layer, I brought out the colors of the sunset. I also added a warming filter to the entire image. I still felt that the rock in the foreground was too gray, so I added another warming filter and masked out everything except the rock. The exposure needed balanced out a little more, so I added a new layer as an overlay and filled it with 50% gray. Using the brush with varying degrees of black or white, I was able to darken/lighten specific areas of the photo. I thought there was too much empty space in the grassy area, so using a new layer, I moved the rock and foreground up into the frame a little farther. Back in LR I made a few tweaks to the white balance and brought up the clarity just a little. I also added a slight vignette. So share your thoughts! My purpose is to share what I’m learning in the realm of post processing as well as to learn from your thoughts and feedback as to how you would have approached the editing process.

ISO 100
12mm
f/20
2.5 sec

• This topic was modified 54 years, 9 months ago by .

Attachments:

1. 
2. 

[thefarmhand]

I would adjust the blue hills. Slightly to blue. Here’s a example.

[thefarmhand]

Trying again, last attachment didn’t work.

Attachments:

1. 

[James Staddon]

Pipestem State Park, eh? Never been there before! Looks like a classic WV setting. And it’s neat that you found a nice overlook facing west with a foreground element to include! It effectively anchors the scene; makes the image feel “deep” and expansive.

Thanks for sharing the step by step editing process. It’s interesting you moved the rock up a bit, because that’s something I wanted to comment on. In framing the picture, I probably would have positioned the rock on the right side of the picture for three reasons: the rock naturally seems to be “pointing” left (to outside the frame right now), it would serve well as a filling element in the grass on the right (the amount of grass is greater in width on the right than it is on the left), and I think it would also counter the weight of the dark trees on the left. Having it even higher in the frame somehow (like closer to the bottom right crosshairs of the rule of thirds) would give it more prominence as an intended element in the composition.

As for editing, it’s important that foreground elements that protrude above the horizon are consistent in brightness below the horizon as well. So, in this picture, the dark trees on the left I think should stay dark below the horizon so that it isn’t easily noticed that an artificial gradient has been added above the horizon.

Like you said, “right” is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion the HDR effect in your shot here is a little too strong. I’m more of the opinion that it’s ok that the foreground is a little too dark and the sky not as vibrant as possible in order to hold to what the eye does not initially question as natural. Am I applying an HDR effect to the attached image?

Attachments:

1. 

[Dan Cope]

Thanks James for the very insightful and helpful response! It’s interesting you posted that shot as an example, because I had looked at it in your blog post when I was thinking about this very subject. I noticed that even though the foreground is much darker than the sky, it does indeed look natural and most likely very near to how it would appear in person. I’m sure my tendency would have been to lighten up the foreground, but I like the natural look you have achieved. That’s one of the things I admire about your photography – you always seem to achieve a natural look with vivid colors, but not overdone. Sometimes I think that when I see something in person such as a dynamic sunset, I am struck by the intensity and beauty of the scene and in trying to capture that in post processing, the tendency is to overdo it. I also realize that I am sometimes captivated by the artwork of a dynamic and brilliant processed photo that I am sure is far more intense and saturated with color than what is even “realistic”, but yet is very beautiful. In fact when I look at some of the work of some well known landscape painters, I can’t help but think that some of the scenes they paint are a bit beyond the realm of what is technically “realistic”. So in that context “overdoing it” may not always be a bad thing if it portrays an artistic look that captivates the eye.

In “learning the ropes” so to speak of post processing, one of the things that I am trying to achieve is knowing how to maximize the brilliance and color of a particular scene without going to far in “pushing the limits” beyond what is natural and realistic, and your response here as well as some earlier posts I found in the archives has helped with that. My initial editing process with the attached photo left the foreground much darker, but just before I posted it, I looked at it and thought it looked underexposed, so I brightened it up. Sometimes I guess looking at and analyzing a photo TOO much is not good!

I’ll revisit this photo in my post processing attempts when I get a chance. In the meantime, here’s another photo that I just processed. Again, this was a single exposure in which I tried to find the right balance between the sky and the foreground. In this case, however, the reflection in the water added a new dimension, in the fact that it adds brightness to the foreground.

Attachments:

1. 

[James Staddon]

That is such an awesome picture, the sunset reflecting in the water like that! Such an amazing place! Where was it taken? It’s one of those shots that could almost be taken anywhere in WV. Anyone can take a beautiful picture at an iconic location; it takes creativity to pull art from one’s normal surroundings.

As a matter of fact, the picture I posted earlier is a combination of these three images. I’m relieved to know that you were under the impression that it wasn’t HDR. 🙂 I don’t want people to think that my pictures are heavily processed. I tend toward the side of realism, so though I could have really made the final image a much higher dynamic range, I chose not to for the sake of what I deem to be realistic. It’s my preference. It’s my style. It’s what I’ve observed in other’s pictures that I like and now strive to imitate.

I’ve learned a lot about exposure blending (I prefer to call it that than HDR) from two different sources: Ian Plant (starting with his Creative Digital Processing Photoshop Video Tutorials) and Jimmy McIntyre, just reading his blog, http://www.throughstrangelenses.com. I think Jimmy over-does it sometimes, but I still like his style.

I too find myself thinking my composites look too dark. Instead of lightening the foreground only (with, say, the Shadows slider), I usually just increase the overall exposure . . . or increase the Whites slider in LR. I make sure there is something pure white in the picture (ie. the info in the histogram extend all the way to the right). That’s called “setting the white point”. And I “set the black point” too with the Blacks slider. It insures there’s a pleasing, natural amount of contrast. Not all pictures call for these “settings” (especially pictures with mist in them). Setting the black and white points are tools, not rules, and “perfect” is determined by my eye on a calibrated screen.

[Dan Cope]

That picture was taken in the small town of Stoneboro, PA. I was there for a church youth camp last week. I got to the lake early hoping for a colorful sunrise, but it didn’t look like it was going to happen. I set my camera up anyway and took a shot when all of a sudden the clouds started turning red! The color lasted for about 5 or 6 minutes.

You have definitely learned the art of processing photos nicely without them looking heavily processed. I will take a look at the links you have provided as I continue this learning process myself! Setting the white and black points is definitely something I need to learn more about.

I think part of it is learning to look at the “whole picture” instead of what you like best about each “part” of the photo. For example, in your first shot, the rich color in the sky is great and so the tendency is to think, “I want the sky to look like THAT!” But looking at the foreground elements, the third photo looks great. It’s easy to think that combining those two as they are would give you the “best of both worlds” so to speak. But when you consider the overall picture, the blend that you have achieved makes the most sense and really, I think, the most pleasing to look at.

Could you have achieved nearly the same results by taking the middle photo and just working with that one exposure by lightening the shadows and darkening the highlights? I would assume that blending is better because more detail is captured in the original exposure as opposed to trying to bring out detail by brightening or darkening. Although sometimes I am amazed at the detail that is actually there in a poorly exposed part of the picture, that becomes evident when the exposure is adjusted.

[Dan Cope]

Here is the sunset photo again with some more edits.

Attachments:

1. 

[James Staddon]

That’s an interesting location. I would never have guessed it was residential from the picture. Did you shoot from private property?

I like how you said it: “But when you consider the overall picture, the blend that you have achieved makes the most sense.” In high contrast situations I really do have to choose which extreme I’m going to put my attention on. You can’t serve two masters.

In the church instance, it was really the sky that I was taking a picture of. The church was a supporting element. Most of the time the building would be the subject, but not this time, which could make some viewers confused . . . “why is the church so dark?”

[Dan Cope]

No it was not on private property. It was at a public boat launch area.

[Author]

Posts