|
|
Post by Peterj on Jul 30, 2019 0:38:48 GMT
Using On1 only - adjusted overall tone, used local adjustments to add structure to ram, another local adjustment to slightly de-saturate background. Comments welcomed!
Before
After  |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,361
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Jul 30, 2019 1:22:31 GMT
Nice capture of the desert bighorn ram. The after version is more striking for sure.
The facial features stand out better. I've only see a couple of these sheep (Lake Havasu City area), so can't comment on the hair colors. I certainly prefer the after version.
Clive
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jul 30, 2019 1:30:00 GMT
Hi Peter,
The colours of the ram are very different between the before and after shots and so it's hard to comment without knowing exactly what you were trying to achieve in the editing.
Was your aim to preserve colour accuracy or simply to enhance/change/saturate colours?
Did you set/correct the white balance of the raw file in your editor?
In the after image, the bottom half of the right horn appears to be blown out to some extent. The right side of the head including the nose look a little overexposed or too bright to me.
Anyway, if you clarify what you were aiming for in your editing it might easier for me to comment more.
What you see on your screen (colours, brightness etc) might not be exactly the same as what viewers see on their screen (because of different screen settings/calibration etc), so as long as the after image looks as you want on your screen that is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Jul 30, 2019 3:10:02 GMT
Thank You @clive
I added a bit of vibrance and increased details using structure - both found in local adjustments - no changes to hue or saturation
No change in WBIn the after image, the bottom half of the right horn appears to be blown out to some extent.
I set tone using the clipping warning in On1 ... I'll have another look
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jul 30, 2019 5:28:59 GMT
No problem Peter.
I'm sure ON1 has a white balance tool like ACR. If you didn't check/set the white balance in the editor, then hopefully your camera got it right.
But if colour accuracy is not a high priority then checking the white balance is not important.
You didn't say what your aim was for your editing as I queried earlier, so I can't add much more.
As I posted earlier, as long as the image looks OK on your screen that is all that matters. What you see on your screen and what others see on their screens will vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Jul 30, 2019 11:45:16 GMT
It's interesting to read the comments you've received, Peter. I actually prefer your before version. You appear to have achieved a nice tonal range and the color of the coat looks more natural to me. The only thing I
might suggest would be to selectively lighten his eye....just a tad. And I'm not even sure you should do that. When I look at the full resolution version of your posted original the eye looks fine as well. For what it's worth, from a non-wildlife
photographer, I think you started out with a winner that really didn't need too much processing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Jul 30, 2019 12:21:29 GMT
I totally agree with Helen,
I am assuming the original is sooc.
If you look at the histogram of the original you will see that you already have a very near full full tonal range for the image so the only tonal check/edit should be perhaps a white balance adjustment if the colours are not quite what you actually saw when taking the photo. Other than that, there isn't really anything technically too wong.
If this was my image I would probably play with a Levels Adjustment Layer on various elements and adjust the black, grey and white sliders for each rgb channel to make the colours pop a bit and so bring out a bit more details.
Maybe a bit of dodging and burning on various elements to give the image a bit more depth as well.
And lastly maybe sharpen the ram just a bit, especially the head and horns.
Anyway, just my 2c worth and some food for thought.
|
|
Fauxtoto
Established Forum Member
Quebec, Canada
Posts: 440
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by Fauxtoto on Jul 30, 2019 12:56:01 GMT
Hi Peterj , Thank you for kindly offering this comfortable back-seat driver’s place. I prefer the second one. Maybe with a little bit less vibrance and a little bit less contrast on the beast. I suspect that you were not in a position to ask the subject to move to the shade or wait for the next cloud. For this reason, the highlights on some places from the harsh sun do not bother me that much; they do not hide essential parts and they globally look consistent with the light. I am not convinced that local adjustments on such highlighted places would be necessary; you could try, if you wished, lightly, just enough to see if you would be able to recover in a consistent manner some of the information. Maybe blurring the background a little bit more or some of its harsher lines. I am not very good with framing and vignettes, but it is something you could think about. Great photograph. I concur in advance with all your decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by kdcintx on Jul 31, 2019 15:24:08 GMT
Good job Peter. I prefer the after version. My only minor comment is to clone out whatever that is on the back side of his mouth (tongue, stick?). It's a bit distracting but not a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peterj on Aug 3, 2019 17:57:02 GMT
Thanks to all for helpful suggestions ...
The backside object is part of the horn. I also found it distracting so I choose another image and processed with everyone's ideas...
 |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Aug 6, 2019 12:01:52 GMT
Hi Peter,
For me, the colours and tones in v2 are much more realistic. I like this one much more than v1.
|
|
