Recommended Posts

JeffGreenberg    358

https://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/sarasota-florida-from-ringling-bridge.jpg?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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Robinson    551

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jill Morgan    677

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS-Images    1,186

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Kuta    73

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiskerke    1,843

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
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeffGreenberg    358

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiskerke    1,843

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now