how to process landscape pictures like these

[flipfreak]

thks flipfreak. agree that he lives in a country that has plenty of beautiful landscape.
but lets not talk about that (cos the more we go into that, the more i want to immigrate
try to focus on the techniques here (more controllable)

can anyone shed some light on how his pictures STILL look great on the web?

its not abt the landscape. its the lighting.

 

[Rashkae]

other than the fact he got excellent gear and skills, the location plays a part as well. the angle of the sun is different from where we get ours. that alone makes quite a big difference in the lighting.

This makes a HUGE difference... I notice it in my travels as well. The light you can get in the more temperate regions like japan, china, north america and europe is just fantastic for photography.

 

[Rashkae]

can anyone shed some light on how his pictures STILL look great on the web?

Simple... He didn't host them on the CS gallery, which has pretty strict filesize limits.

If you reduce a large image to a small size and *then* run a mild sharpen on it in photoshop, then upload it to photobucket (which doesn't restrict your file size or impose additional compression) then you can get that too.

 

[emlee]

its not abt the landscape. its the lighting.

thks. noted your point. have to agree.

This makes a HUGE difference... I notice it in my travels as well. The light you can get in the more temperate regions like japan, china, north america and europe is just fantastic for photography.

thks. indeed, i noticed that too.

Simple... He didn't host them on the CS gallery, which has pretty strict filesize limits.

If you reduce a large image to a small size and *then* run a mild sharpen on it in photoshop, then upload it to photobucket (which doesn't restrict your file size or impose additional compression) then you can get that too.

good point. thanks.

 

[Fallenphoenix]

The lighting there re dimmer....if u come to Aus in spring or summer...u'll face another issue...too bright...lol. Way brighter than sg.
overexposed at iso100, F8, 1/2000 - was using powershot at that time...haven't got my dslr...
It's the photographer that matters more - quality of the shot depends on how he react to the environment and his tools

 

[emlee]

Hi, to share something i found on the internet, and relating to these 2 lines from Marc relating to images 1 and 2

1: Sunrise, clearing snowstorm, Many Glacier region. Peaceful, yes, though it was taken in 40mph winds and driving sleet. 16mm, 2-stop GND, 1/10 sec. at f/14. Sky/Land processed seperately in RAW and Blended at varying opacities for best color rendition.

2. Climbed down a cliff just off Going-to-the-Sun road to get this perspective. 2 stacked 3-stop GND's gives the strong magenta, which I like. Blended from 1 other exposure on either side to prevent total loss of details. 16mm, 4 seconds at f/14.

check out this link which shed some light on how to process a single image, but optimized on it's foreground and background. this is, however, on a jpg, and it was only limited to brightness and contrast, when more could be done. it would be better if you have a raw file. the steps would be quite similar.

Hope more people are inspired to shoot now. I think I have found some answers, but still needs lots of practise, and shooting. thank you all for contributing.

 

[nemesis32]

of cos. but the lighting of the location itself can make or break the picture. we live too near the equator so the sun tends to hit us straight on as opposed to other countries.

yeah, despite what everyone says... u really cant replicate the lighting condition and landscape in SG... An SG landscape photographer is not just a dying breed but a DEAD one..

 

[emlee]

The lighting there re dimmer....if u come to Aus in spring or summer...u'll face another issue...too bright...lol. Way brighter than sg.
overexposed at iso100, F8, 1/2000 - was using powershot at that time...haven't got my dslr...
It's the photographer that matters more - quality of the shot depends on how he react to the environment and his tools

that one needs to be trained slowly, started this thread in hope to understand what techniques are applied. we all learn these skills and techniques, and with practise so that we are able to deal with more and more complex situations, thus allowing us to (1 day) be like these great photographers. - 1 situation/step at a time.

 

[night86mare]

I'm not a CS guru, but just my 2 cents worth of knowledge on this.

For the first pic, because he is using a full frame sensor, hence he can effectively stop down his aperture to near f/16 before diffraction seeps in, which for APS-C lens is roughly around f/8 only. At f/14, you can get almost excellent sharpness for the L glass he is using

But it must be quite a sunny day too, if not at f/14, it's unlikely he get 1/10s shutter. He uses a 2stop GND, the day should be rather much brighter than you observe in the pic.

In order to get focus at all distance, you need to get the hyperfocal length. Since he mentioned his focal length used is 16mm, it means anything within approx 2/3 feet away from his camera to infinity will be focused.

Thanks

sharpness has nothing to do with details here. at that focal length, with nothing particularly close to the lens, even f/11 would do.

marc adamus shares a lot of his technique online, just read carefully and you'll see what he does.

 

[night86mare]

other than the fact he got excellent gear and skills, the location plays a part as well. the angle of the sun is different from where we get ours. that alone makes quite a big difference in the lighting.

i don't know, but loads of photographers stay in the locations marc adamus stays and they don't produce anything particularly noteworthy.

and there are many, many pictures there that have little to do with the sun.

i'll have to disagree with you here; behind every beautifully lit picture there are 10 failed visits.

for an idea of what i mean, look at kahkityoong's photograph here - how many photographers on cs would just turn and walk away simply because "got no yolk wor".

 

[night86mare]

can anyone shed some light on how his pictures STILL look great on the web?

other than his excellent processing, he tends to add a certain crispness to his photograph which he has described before -

resize to twice the size of the final size you upload to web, sharpen TWICE using photoshop cs2 filter --> sharpen --> sharpen tool (i suppose he doesn't do any sharpening before that)..

then resize to the size you want. it works wonders for web uploading; i'm told that it does nothing for printing though.. naturally.

i got to see adam burton's works in print recently; they look even better that way. you should check him out too.

 

[flipfreak]

i don't know, but loads of photographers stay in the locations marc adamus stays and they don't produce anything particularly noteworthy.

and there are many, many pictures there that have little to do with the sun.

i'll have to disagree with you here; behind every beautifully lit picture there are 10 failed visits.

for an idea of what i mean, look at kahkityoong's photograph here - how many photographers on cs would just turn and walk away simply because "got no yolk wor".

of course the photog will play a part in producing good pics. that i can't deny and will not deny the photog of that honor.

but u shld know what kind of lighting we typically get here. so reproducing what we see from overseas can be impossible here.

 

[David Kwok]

sharpness has nothing to do with details here. at that focal length, with nothing particularly close to the lens, even f/11 would do.

marc adamus shares a lot of his technique online, just read carefully and you'll see what he does.

Sure thanks

 

[emlee]

of course the photog will play a part in producing good pics. that i can't deny and will not deny the photog of that honor.

but u shld know what kind of lighting we typically get here. so reproducing what we see from overseas can be impossible here.

hi flipfreak and night86mare,
thanks for your invaluable insights. i'm trying to keep this thread away of debate of photographers' skills, environment, composition, etc. I have seen other threads spiral out of control with such discussions.
hence i post this in digital darkroom, hoping to learn some techniques that may come in handy for my use (and other newbies alike). while learning techniques are important, knowing when and how to apply it is just as important, hence practise and repeated failures will soon come in.
no, this thread is not about trying to re-produce such shots in Singapore. but who knows, we all travel sometimes, we might come across similar settings, and you just never know...

thanks again.

 

[emlee]

other than his excellent processing, he tends to add a certain crispness to his photograph which he has described before -

resize to twice the size of the final size you upload to web, sharpen TWICE using photoshop cs2 filter --> sharpen --> sharpen tool (i suppose he doesn't do any sharpening before that)..

then resize to the size you want. it works wonders for web uploading; i'm told that it does nothing for printing though.. naturally.

i got to see adam burton's works in print recently; they look even better that way. you should check him out too.

thanks. i have probably not read this as i only started reading FM's forum last week. this is a great tip!

 

[billycadiz]

Thanks david.... hi to all, but are these photos considered HDR?? bec. Ive seen HDR photos that seem unnatural and this samples images are close to reality..TIA:lovegrin:

 

[emlee]

Thanks david.... hi to all, but are these photos considered HDR?? bec. Ive seen HDR photos that seem unnatural and this samples images are close to reality..TIA:lovegrin:

hi, these are most certainly not HDR, in the full sense. however, there is somewhat HDR quality about them - they captured more range than usual. this is in part due to the split processing from a single raw file, followed by blending. check out my reply a few msg before.

that's what makes this so interesting.

 

[night86mare]

hi, these are most certainly not HDR, in the full sense. however, there is somewhat HDR quality about them - they captured more range than usual. this is in part due to the split processing from a single raw file, followed by blending. check out my reply a few msg before.

that's what makes this so interesting.

the technical term might be DRI.

alternatively, some may call it manual hdr blending. not only RAW files can be used, a separate exposure with different jpgs can also be used. layering work, etc.. but of course needs a very good eye and imagination and visualisation to end up with a good end product. as well as good expertise with photoshop.

realkuhl on flickr is another one that uses such technique. it is hard to show online how to do it actually.. unless one uses masks , etc.. and i have done it before, but didn't keep the originals else would be easier to illustrate,.

 

[billycadiz]

wow! I'm lost.......:what: :sweat: need to search a lot guys.. Thanks for all the info...:thumbsup:

 

[night86mare]

Thanks david.... hi to all, but are these photos considered HDR?? bec. Ive seen HDR photos that seem unnatural and this samples images are close to reality..TIA:lovegrin:

hi, these are most certainly not HDR, in the full sense. however, there is somewhat HDR quality about them - they captured more range than usual. this is in part due to the split processing from a single raw file, followed by blending. check out my reply a few msg before.

that's what makes this so interesting.

i'm not really sure about the technical terms, but it is not important

both hdr and dri have an increase in dynamic range - more than what the camera is able to perceive, closer to what the EYE can perceive.

why hdr photos usually end up looking unnatural is because a lot (too much) people favour the overdone,overpushed outputs from the usual hdr program (photomatix). it has somehow become mistaken as the "hdr look".

photomatix can produce natural results as well, but i also do not like it because it tends to look a wee bit cg, and is not as customisable as the dri (or manual blending) method.

this is a photomatix output massaged in photoshop; i did not use dri here because it was really too hard (too many details, and much too much time for something that isn't that great in the first place)..

and this is also photomatix, but a lot more burn/dodge work and layering was done to make it look natural (i hope)

compared to this, which is manual blending

in short, for the last picture there were 3 exposures, one for the sky above the jetty, one for the water flows, one for the rock details. stacked them in photoshop and then slowly erase, adjust layer opacity, etc.. with a soft brush. i remember this took me quite a while. no filters were used.

of course none of these reach anything as great as what marc adamus or adam burton do. btw emlee if you haven't already, please check out the whole of timecatcher team. all of them are solid landscape photographers which are inspirational in their own right.