Jump to content

Welcome to the Alamy Contributor Forum. Log-in using your existing Alamy account details. If you're not registered yet then you need to create an Alamy Contributor account to be able to post here. Once registered, you'll be able to choose a forum display name and there will be a link to your images on Alamy within your profile. Please have a read of the rules and announcements before posting. Your first post will be moderated before appearing. Welcome to our photographer community!


Photo
- - - - -

how was this image processed...?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 JeffGreenberg

JeffGreenberg

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Locationeither the A-B-C-D-E-F-G-L-1-2-3-5-6 or 7 train...
  • Images:119338

Posted 6 days ago

https://247wallst.fi...pg?w=1290&h=726

Sky = time exposure + ND filter...?
Yet water ripples are not?
Two images layered...?
Other way? Thanks.
(not going to imitate, just curious)


Edited by JeffGreenberg, 6 days ago.

  • 0

0776B4C2A08248139F42220F4C52F025.jpg

photos photography images by Jeff Jeffrey Greenberg

currently listening to THIS

view pg 1 HERE to critique me latest processing


#2 Russell

Russell

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 327 posts
  • LocationHampshire, UK
  • Images:1304

Posted 6 days ago

HDR?
  • 0

#3 Phil Robinson

Phil Robinson

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,184 posts
  • LocationMaidstone, Kent
  • Images:29862

Posted 6 days ago

Layers I'd say. The water doesn't quite look like it belongs.

The sky looks like it's had some sort of digital painty filter applied.


Edited by Phil Robinson, 6 days ago.

  • 0

www.PjrFoto.com


#4 Doc

Doc

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • LocationSuffolk UK
  • Images:20453

Posted 6 days ago

HDR?

+1

 

Kumar (the Doc one)


  • 0

#5 Jill Morgan

Jill Morgan

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • LocationThe Back 40, Lindsay, Ontario
  • Images:2110

Posted 6 days ago

To me it looks like the bottom left quarter has been cooled down - look how blue the road and rails look - but the buildings have been warmed up as has the lower right part of the water. 

 

Jill


  • 0
 Photography Website:  http://jkmorganpets....rganphotography
 
 Custom Equestrian & Dog Supplies:  http://jkmorganpets.com

#6 wiskerke

wiskerke

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 2,578 posts
  • LocationHaarlem - The Netherlands
  • Images:2328

Posted 6 days ago

 

HDR?

+1

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

 

 

-1

 

wim


  • 0

#7 Allan Bell

Allan Bell

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 3,115 posts
  • LocationCambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
  • Images:3314

Posted 6 days ago

HDR with added Blur to sky.

 

Allan


  • 0

A keyword is worth a thousand pictures.

 


#8 GS-Images

GS-Images

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,642 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Images:2697

Posted 6 days ago

I'd also say HDR, but the sky looks to be another layer. The reason I think that is that the sky is quite blurred, yet the depth of field is very large otherwise, with objects close to the foreground (left side of the foreground wall/barrier) and also distant buildings in sharp focus. So I would expect the sky to be sharp too, which it is not.

 

Geoff.


  • 0

#9 Bill Kuta

Bill Kuta

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 6 days ago

Looks like the sun was at a low angle to the left (see reflection off building at right), maybe showing under some passing rain clouds? The blue-pink coloration in the sky looks like the sun will set soon. The dark clouds seem a little too dark, but it might just be overall saturation boost & added contrast. The water beyond the little dock is probably more protected from an off-shore wind. The clouds might be moving quickly.

 

Overall, I can see this one as fairly close to verisimilitude of a somewhat unusual scene.


Edited by Bill Kuta, 6 days ago.

  • 0

#10 Grant F

Grant F

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 6 days ago

Way too much LSD.
  • 3

#11 Gervais Montacute

Gervais Montacute

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 6 days ago

HDR or possibly 2 or 3 images using masking and erasing which is a sort of faux HDR.
  • 0

#12 Chuck Nacke

Chuck Nacke

    The original one

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 447 posts
  • LocationBoston, MA, USA
  • Images:1100

Posted 6 days ago

+1 Grant.....


  • 1

#13 John Mitchell

John Mitchell

    Part of the forum furniture

  • Verified
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,203 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC
  • Images:6274

Posted 6 days ago

Way too much LSD.

 

Is that a new Photoshop plugin?


  • 3

John Mitchell

 

 

 


#14 wiskerke

wiskerke

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 2,578 posts
  • LocationHaarlem - The Netherlands
  • Images:2328

Posted 6 days ago

Sorry to be back so late. I have been glued to the screen, watching all those videos about the new Sony A9.

Holy guacamole!

 

 

Right back to topic, this is what I was doing when all that Sony stuff broke out:

 

 

1st.

Have you googled the photographer?
;-)

 

OK I have tried to bring it back to the original and it's really simple.

The Exif says 5.6 at 1/250 at 100 ISO.

That's correct for about everything: waves and wind. Maybe the sky is a tad too dark.

Note that the Adobe History is missing from the metadata. What we're seeing is the G*y Im*s/iS*o metadata. Kudos for leaving those in or providing those btw.

The sun is over our left shoulder and it's close to sunset. The original time says 18:54:34, that could be consistent on November 14th 2014. (People who travel, not always adjust their camera clocks.)

With the sun in our back we expect small deep black shadows, which indeed we have here.

The water and the railings and the blue roof is way too saturated which tells us that maybe vibrance has been jacked up a lot or just the blues and aquas in HSL.

To be sure maybe have a peak at the actual scene, which is here on Google.

 

So if we open it in RAW first try setting everything to auto. Note that there is a pretty big shift towards the warm side. But shadow and highlights stay at 0. However the exposure goes up; whites go up; and contrast goes up. That may indicate they all have gone down in the original edit. However it may be that only parts have gone down in the original edit. And that usually is the case with experienced photographers.

So the sky is bluer than it should be, but probably also darker. Hence the overall exposure that wants to go up when set to auto.

OK so we set Exposure and Contrast  to 0. Let's put whites back to 0 too.

Let's reduce Vibrance by 20 to -20 and Saturation to -5.

Now go over to HSL:

In Luminance:
Aquas to +20
Blues to +20
Purples to +10
Magentas to +10

In Saturation:
Aquas to -10
Blues to - 20
Purples to -10
Magentas to -10

Now when I open the result in Photoshop and do an Auto Levels or Auto Tone, the shadows go a bit darker, but in a funny way. So the my initial shadows and black settings have not been correct. The blacks have been deepened a little bit and the shadows have been brightened a little bit.

So back to RAW.

The same for the sky, because it has to be a different setting for the sky. The dark tones are way too dark for the rest of the image.

So in the end this is the result.

No HDR, just an extra layer for the sky with more darkness: deeper blacks, more vibrance and contrast. But the initial HSL Saturation and Luminance settings to the blues and aquas etc are showing in the waves and the roof and the railings.

 

wim

 

edit: I'll remove the image in a couple of hours, because it's quite rude to have that up without any watermark or anything.


Edited by wiskerke, 6 days ago.

  • 3

#15 JeffGreenberg

JeffGreenberg

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 1,426 posts
  • Locationeither the A-B-C-D-E-F-G-L-1-2-3-5-6 or 7 train...
  • Images:119338

Posted 6 days ago

Ace Wiskerke, Processing Detective  :ph34r: 

 

In your deprocessed version, sky-clouds don't look

nearly as much like a 10+ sec exposure!

 

To those knocking its heavy processing -- it was licensed...


  • 0

0776B4C2A08248139F42220F4C52F025.jpg

photos photography images by Jeff Jeffrey Greenberg

currently listening to THIS

view pg 1 HERE to critique me latest processing


#16 wiskerke

wiskerke

    Forum regular

  • Verified
  • PipPip
  • 2,578 posts
  • LocationHaarlem - The Netherlands
  • Images:2328

Posted 6 days ago

Ace Wiskerke, Processing Detective  :ph34r: 

 

In your deprocessed version, sky-clouds don't look

nearly as much like a 10+ sec exposure!

 

To those knocking its heavy processing -- it was licensed...

 

Blush.

 

Correct, I don't think there was a second (longer) exposure. It would have been difficult to get it all done. Tripod; filter; strong winds on a bridge. Besides there's no need. Why bother.

 

If you drop the image into Google Images, you'll see it's been used quite a bit. And the photographer uses it herself in her other business. (Now probably her day job.)

The processing could be one or two presets. Or filters or actions, or even simply a camera profile, but I doubt that, because it's so easy to do from image to image. And it's all fairly standard. Most of it I'm applying to my images. Which is why I gave it a go, because I had Photoshop open and was doing more or less the same with one of mine. I usually don't touch the magenta and purples.

 

Now back to marveling at that Sony. Nice to know that that sensor is basically a grown up RX100 V with a high level cache.

 

wim


  • 1

#17 CarlMillerPhotos

CarlMillerPhotos

    Forum newbie

  • Verified
  • Pip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC
  • Images:888

Posted 2 days ago

Way too much LSD.

 No such thing!! :-)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users