Thankyou. Interesting. I have had a look back through my processing and I cannot find where the error comes from. Usually this kind of artefact results from camera/colour profiles within Lightroom. I have not used recovery. It's a bit of a headache now...I will have to return to this at a later date.
it color channel clipping...Its unavoidable if you have high levels of saturation shooting into the sun. Best thing you can do is use exposure averaging to soften it. Or avoid the oversaturation in this particular case
take an image say 0.2 stops brighter and one 0.2 dark and average with this exposure. The transition line moves between those exposures so when you average it's softened. That was an original piece of Alex Nail problem solving FYI
I am offended by you saying this is HDR NO! I haven't used hdr for years now and I haven't looked back.... 2 stop hard grad filter, 2 exposures, blended by hand in photoshop. HDR always looks bad and unnatural and the images it produces are soft and no good for print.....
Anyway thanks for the compliments glad you like it...
KrisKozlowskiMooreFeatured By OwnerMay 13, 2011 Photographer
Sorry!! ahah im not too experienced in that field so when i see a picture with really good details in all areas then i sort of presumer it's HDR but i'm almost glad you said its not as i agree HDR can give funny results sometimes.
What do you mean by hand blending them? could you give me a quick quick guide as in just the rough outline of the process? that would be awsome!
OK thanks for the interest, I'll give you an answer but it will have to be brief. I think you can find out the rest on DA or on the web if you want to learn more...
Basically "hand blending" refers to the process which I and many others are using to create higher dynamic range images manually in photoshop. HDR is not really a bad word but the process which the image goes through to produce an HDR image know as Tone Mapping is bad. It is automated and affects every area of the image giving that unreal nasty look. So creating a blended image is a more realistic way of getting a higher dynamic range (or range of recorded light) into a shot.
Firstly more than one exposure is created, usually (in my case) at the capture stage but sometimes at the initial processing stage so simply speaking one bright and one dark exposure, one for highlights and one for shadows. Neither of these shots is usable on it's own. So by blending the correctly exposed elements of each exposure into a finished image gives the desired effect, an image with a wider range of available tones.
Those 2 exposures are therefore overlayed within PS and a layer mask is created which allows parts of the each to be shown to different degrees. The most simple blend would be a sky, a straight horizon and a sea. One exposure for the sky, one for the sea and the layer mask would just be a very simple gradient between the 2 exposures aligned across the horizon showing the sky exposure at the top and the sea exposure at the bottom of the frame.
After that things get more complicated, objects and areas have to be masked around and different areas darkened and lightened to different degrees. Some images take 3 or more exposures to achieve. Sometimes a difficult image might take me (fairly inexperienced!) 2-3 hours to achieve. Usually though blends take 10-40 minutes to create. This image for example took me about 30 mins. But consider that it took me 2 minutes to set up my camera 2 seconds to shoot.....7 hours to climb the mountain 4 hours to get back to the car and 10 hours to travel to it and 10 hours back.....
yeah it's hard work getting up these places with all the gear I've done 3 munros, about 20 miles of mountain walking in a day.. up ben nevis and 2 other munros either side, with over 20KG of gear and it was damn near 30 degrees all day Fun times!
This is lovely, and yes, it is better than Alex's shot. It's the little things, the light on the foreground grass and the red earth on the path. It's also processed differently too, and I think I prefer the processing of this shot. Alex says that he thinks his processing is more realistic, and I know that's Alex's aim in landscape photography is a faithful representation of reality. Personally though, I'm not all that bothered about how faithful to reality a shot is for a whole host of reasons, and besides, this is very very realistic. A stunning shot Jake, treat yourself to a big print of it
That print bit put a smile on my face, I haven't printed one of my shots for like 4 years and I keep saying I will get a print-folio together but hard to know where to start.
I think I have pushed the processing further than Alex, I like to turn things up a little but I am becoming a purist more and more so I have limitations. I don't want photos to exactly represent a scene as it was put simple that is not what I see photography as. As you guessed this is pretty realistic, the scene was mind blowing....
you're images look good on my screen so just get them printed! Last time I checked you can download the printer profile from ProAm. You just convert to their print profile in photoshop, save upload and pay The quality is excellent
I think its generally very good, I just think the sky is too dark. I would brighten it with curves. and brighten it with curves again on the right hand side to counteract the light falloff. You've also increased the contrast/saturation a little more than my personal taste but thats a personal thing. Overall I wouldnt actually criticise your processing but I would do it a little differently