DxO PhotoLab 4 and Candid Photos

Nice link. I know these surrealistic worlds mostly from paintings and drawings.
Though there is a big difference between manipulating images in tis way and by example you did with the pelican. The first one is creating a complete new world, the pelican modified an existing world.
Leaves me with the question why these buildings you removed are distracting subjects. Or why garbage in the boat pictures had to be removed.

George

I am the one who did, so i answer this.
I have no rule in photograph or image, i call everything a image and i don’t sell nor compete in competitions so no boundery’s there either.
My main rule is does it look natural? Then does it represent my memory or goal?
We are in the real life very selecting in looking, hence the different eye withnes reports all the time and we ignore distracting things by nature. In the stone age your life depended on that ability. He: “what’s that for nice looking…”… Blammm eaten by a bear or sabeltooth tiger…:joy:

But with looking at stills we have more time to see details and then the filter is less active. So those leaves are distracting, they attracts your eye’s and your brain tries to identify it. (als natural.) the more difficult to identify the more it distract.
And if this distraction has no part of the composition i remove it so the image improves in strenght. Same as a half person or a legg, arm, treebranch, garbage, bird.(if it’s just a blob, small spot in the air then i remove it because it’s like a dustspot.)

Anyway that’s my way of thinking. Everyone is free of choice unless it’s choice is colliding with a goal he’s asking trying to get, then it’s fair game to point out his or her flaw in thinking. And even then he or she may do what to there liking. Showing an other way don’t mean it’s the right way. Just an other way.

Peter

3 Likes

I didn’t address to somebody specific. It was just part of this thread.

This is not a law. It’s what you think is important for you. Not for me or somebody else.

George

2 Likes

Well, it just goes to show how insignificant those things are in the frame on a quick glance but, had I bought the image to hang on the wall, I would have been ever so slightly annoyed to discover how distracting those things were on closer inspection.

I think that is mainly what I do.

I noticed this effect when driving. Sometimes I will catch a glimpse of a scene that looks amazing whilst going past it, only to stop to take a photo and find that it looks nothing like what I perceived whilst moving.

Clouds are most frustrating because, whilst they are moving, you get a sense of 3D, which is very difficult to capture in a single still shot. This may be why some use ClearView Plus to try and separate the clouds more. The truth is, what you saw, whilst watching the clouds moving, is impossible to capture in 1/1000 second. To me, that justifies enhancing the contrast in order to record what I not only saw but experienced.

@mikemyers I am willing to bet that you didn’t even see the buildings on the horizon when you took the pelican shot. Your vision was on the main subject that you wanted to capture - the pelican. If that is what you were looking at, then removing things that distract, either by judicious framing or by cloning out, is better showing what you saw and wanted others to see in the photo. I can imagine someone looking at your photo and commenting on the buildings rather than what you perceived to be the subject. And it’s even worse when someone is distracted from the subject by things that catch the eye and draw it away form the intended focus of the image.

I really do get why you (Mike) think like you do about photojournalism but don’t forget, sometimes the most dangerous edit can be done when you take the picture - framing to avoid seeing what was going on around the subject.

When we were looking for a house here in France, we saw a lovely little cottage on the internet and asked the agent to take us to see it. What the (unretouched) photos didn’t show was that it was within metres of a pig farm!!! And yet such a photo fully qualifies as an accurate record of what was there and would be valid for a photojournalistic competition - just not a record of all of what was there :wink:


Mike, you must understand better than most how difficult it can be to capture a vehicle moving at speed, that is sharp, without getting the background sharp as well, thus looking like someone had just parked the vehicle. The key is to not only capture what you saw in an instant (a car on a race track) but also to convey that sense of speed that you experienced at the time.

As others have said, if you need to follow “rules” to validate an image for a competition or the like, then fine - do so for those situations. But I guess that not every photo that you take is going to be for that purpose. So, whilst you are not working as a photojournalist, and for the pleasure of others, try making images that are pleasing to look at rather than simply acting as a record of “facts”. That way, you will give yourself much more material to practice your editing skills in PL, some of which will benefit your “factual” work.

Since it seems to be difficult to take wider shots which do not contain distractions, try the challenge of taking small details like these…

3 Likes

@joanna

from your above post (to Mike)

"Since it seems to be difficult to take wider shots which do not contain distractions,
try the challenge of taking small details like these… "

To concentrate on interesting subjects is often easier to do with a good telezoom lens
– and also saves cropping.

1 Like

@mwsilvers and everybody in this discussion

Your comparison in DxO PhotoLab 4 and Candid Photos shows a valid point. These big white buildings, being on the same vertical axis like the pelican, can easily distract from the subject – proven by your ‘clean’ version.

To me, it’s because you cropped the pic to square and converted to B&W. In this version, I would reduce the brightess of the boat to give the pelican a bit more importance. Maybe a gentle vignette would also help. Otherwise it’s fine (and yes, you were talking to Mike to show him his nice photo).

A different solution is this from PhotoLab 4 with X-rite i1Display Studio display calibrator First, being a colour version, the dark pelican with its bright beak (high contrast to cyan) dominates the sky. But then also with the landscape format, the buildings along the skyline appear less relevant. When you check the enclosed dop-file, you see that I also balanced the brightness of the boat and the buildings to the pelican’s head and neck. Like this, the three white ‘patches’ form a triangle and support the subject
– at least that was my idea.

and most importanly – have fun, Wolfgang :slight_smile:

If this had been my image I might have put in more time considering additional modifications such as more vignetting and the brightness of the boat. My goal, though, was a quick demonstration for @mikemyers that a strict adherence to images that look exactly like the photographer saw them can often result in less satisfying images…

Mark

1 Like

Yeah, Mr. or Mr. Pelican came flying by me, and I captured a series of images as it moved from left to right. If I do this again, I’ll use a wider aperture for less depth of field.

You are right, I was completely oblivious to the buildings.

Some days, there are pelicans all around me. There days, there are none.

This photo was taken yesterday. I just got my second Covid-19 shot, and I wasn’t in the mood for doing much, but when I looked out my window and saw this, I grabbed my D750 with 80-200 lens. There weren’t all that many corrections. The “holes” in the sky looking into the bright sunlight are burnt out - my fault - but I don’t know how I could have prevented it. White balance was on the cruise ship, which I also lightened a little.

I thought about brightening up the buildings, but they were all in shadow, and what you see here is how it looked to me. Ditto about bringing out the trees a little more.

Any advice or suggestions? Anyone want to try to interpret it differently?

_MJM8669 | 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef (26.5 MB)

_MJM8669 | 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef.dop (14.4 KB)

Once again I must stress that how you think you remember the scene looking doesn’t necessarily make for a great picture. This image has a lot of potential, but in its current state it seems too flat and dull to me. In addition, the helicopter is an unnecessary distraction that does noting to enhance the image but instead draws the eye away from the sky. It is an interesting shot, but I think few people would find it terribly exciting as is.

Mark

1 Like

I find myself agreeing with Mark about everything being too dull and flat to make an interesting image.

Here is my version so far…

I have often been aware that you can sometimes get a slight blueish feel to the light from the sky opposite a setting sun, so I did lift the buildings a bit to give more interest and detail and it gives a contrast from a soft sky to the angular patterns of the facades of the buildings.

And, yes, I did get rid of that darned helicopter, which was really pulling the eye away from exploring the mid-ground.

I also tried to keep a balance between bringing out the beautiful crepuscular rays and putting too much detail in the rest of the clouds.

And here’s the dop file…

_MJM8669 | 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef.dop (44,2 Ko)

1 Like

The biggest problem for me with this image is the halo’s around the skyscrapers. Very Very visible around the most right shape.
Typical for using smartlighting too heavy i think.

I agree about the helicopter, it’s just to small for it’s use. A much bigger one more in front would create a D3 effect but now it’s a “blob”
But the shape is destinctive enough to be seen as helicopter imidiately.
So in or out is not a bigg issue.

@mikemyers If you aimed exposure on the light hole’s and got them just from blowing out you got skyscraper silluette’s , dark nearly black buildings. And a mid toned clouds with detail. Because the light is beaming on the back side of the skyline you can’t get it natural looking and detailed…

So turn it the other way and create a silluette image…
I will try it later to create a example if you like.

The other way was expose more on the buildings and boats, let the sky litt up with blown lighthole’s to create that “heaven is opend the doors” feeling…

This one is just in the middle, too dark in the mid tone’s but not dark enough to have detailed highlights and not dark enough to get that shadowed skyline.
Ergo no punch. No “mystery”

I need to think about this.
I love what you did to the sky, and
I love what you did to the actual buildings (not the halos).

But, it no longer looks “real” to me.
Maybe that’s because the sky isn’t reflected in the water enough.

But it is a beautiful, spectacular, image.

…and my small helicopter shows the sky did not come from Luminar.

I downloaded your ‘dop’ and re-opened the image with your settings. The “halo” around the buildings makes it look edited. I think the reflection in the water needs to be stronger. I’m not sure how to do these things.

It’s prettier, but I think it goes too far.

ok two very quick and dirty edit’s just to make my points:
my what if you shot it darker:

and this one is over pushed because it’s not in there i think but i just shuffled it to the bright point as example:

_MJM8669 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef.dop (22,6 KB)

there both not “good” because the the exposures arn’t there for what i like to show.
edit: a very dark version which i think would be the most interesting look for this scene:


final edit: i think this would be my end result: the helicopter is flying out a dark world into the bright sun up through the clouds to the light. i use that helicopter to give it a “story”… (the sunbeams are your objective the reason to shoot the image not the city so light’s off there.

_MJM8669 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef.dop (24,1 KB)


i would remove this “bird blobs” in the hole image the are spots not to identify as bird’s

Yep, I’ll spend this afternoon trying to blow the bird blobs off the sensor, starting with my M10:

Here is my version. I tried to maintain a similar crop to Mike’s version since that is the one he chose. I wanted to keep the helicopter for him, but doing so really hurts the image in my opinion. I played with the lighting and moved it more towards the reds. I also increased the reflection of the lighting on the water and changed the lighting on the buildings using control points. after that I darkened the overall exposure. Since I wasn’t there I can’t comment on how it might have actually looked.

Mark

My favorite version is what you just did. The sky is realistic, the buildings can be seen, and I guess my helicopter can go. I picked the image I did specifically because of the helicopter. I think the attached version shows the sky best, but I haven’t done anything to it:
_MJM8667 | 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef (26.1 MB)
I’ll work on this image in an hour or so. I like what I’ve learned from all of you, but I need to be able to do it on my own.

Also, sensor cleaning on Leica - effortless. I was so concerned with doing it, but all went fine. I just used a “rocket air blower”. Now I need to do it on the D750. The first photo isn’t a “picture” of the dust, it is highly exaggerated to make the dust easier to see.

OK. You are totally right about the halos - I must have gotten a bit image-blind. So, I’ve turned off the Smart Lighting completely and added a local adjustment to brighten the water just a tad.

Here’s the revised dop file…

_MJM8669 | 2021-01-31-Sunset over Miami.nef.dop (41,3 Ko)

Great example of the bad site of smartlighting.

Much better this one but my eh issue with the image is , it’s me probably, the city is unnatural bright in this light type and or ive seen this city too much or i find it not interesting enough to lift shadows to reveal details that much.

Somehow the image would be better if the sunbeams where striking the front side of the buildings. Which you can’t plan by the way.
Wasn’t there so can’t tell how it looked in real live. I think that would help to find the balance between shadows and details of the bottom half of the image.

Ouch… I wonder if there is a way to turn the city around, so the buildings face West, not East… I do get similar effects to what you describe if I go out on the balcony a few minutes after sunrise, when the city is bathed in bright sort-of-orange light. If I wake up early enough, I’ll try that tomorrow.

As to what the city looked like… My screen captures at the left is pretty much what I could see with my eyes, but it was brighter. I thought stopping down my lens a little would help with the ultra-bright parts of the sky. Obviously it wasn’t enough. I was hoping for more color, but the sun wasn’t low enough for that. This latest view is now my favorite.