Challenge: Crepuscular Rays: Optimize This!

[Winston Mitchell]

Ignore this silly fill line.

Sandrine and Winston,

I'm glad to see more work on this. You also need to give you step by step method of working!
Overall: Tone curve and brightness adjustment.
Rocks: Adjustment brush to boost brightness and saturation (to bring the grass out)
All adjustments with Lightroom 3.

BTW, Where did you get the big file from?
8th post in this thread.

Asher

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

HI, here is the PS background with the layers

so basically...
the layer one is a soft light neutral grey layer where I painted in white the areas in the sky where the sun beams are.
I made a vibrance layer masking the rocks because I wanted the background to be more saturated (but not too much)
There is a level layer for the rocks on the foreground to make them lighter with a little touches of masking on the dark areas of the rocks to enhance the local contrast...
A color balance for the background to get rid of that blue cast.
A general level adjustement layer.
And a high pass filter to enhance the crispness (particularly on the rocks, and on the big lines in the sky)

I made the masks a bit "on the go" without refining them with any filter at all, that's usually what takes me most of my time. That's why they are so bad.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm thinking that I would like to show the foreground as a little warmer, brighter, and more luminous, and the background (everything above the near rocks) as a little contrastier, and perhaps a little cooler, maybe with the rays a little more glowing, without blowing out any detail. I would like for the final results not to stray too far from the bounds of reality, but there is certainly some room for individual interpretations of the scene (including different from what I detailed, above).

Hi Mike,

I thought I'd give it a try with another method, SNS-HDR, just to see what it would do.

The funny thing is, I didn't look at your 'directions' above until I quoted them, I just adjusted the SNS settings to my liking, and happened to do similar things as your train of thoughts. Warming the foreground a bit by increasing the saturation, and increasing the blueish background tones also with saturation. I reduced some of the mid tone contrast 'enhancement' from the default SNS treatement just because I prefer subtlety. The added drama is due to the SNS tonemapping which brings out contrast in subtle lighting differences and reduces overall contrast in a visually natural looking manner (especially with impossible HDR contrast ranges).

I like the detailed foreground versus the more veiled background, and the color contrast between them.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Mark Hampton]

Rework of Mike Spinaks picture - Editing Only Mark Hampton​

I reworked this one in B&W - I enjoyed working on a landscape that seems so Alien to me.

I split the image foreground and background using selections / then made adjustments for the BW - needed an Orange filter type setting for the foreground and used more magenta / violet bias for the background - Also adjusted the curves for those areas.

On the background area I used a couple of gradual adjustments. I burned in the foreground (could do with a bit more to emphasis the shapes of the rocks) - burned the top left corner in as well.

All done in cs 4.

Then i pulled it back into ACR and split toned and adjusted the whole image curve.

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

Looks a bit like an IR shot, very bizarre! nice one, though...

 

[Asher Kelman]

I reworked this one in B&W - I enjoyed working on a landscape that seems so Alien to me.

Rework of Mike Spinaks picture - Editing Only Mark Hampton​

Mark,

This is a an engaging version that should print very well. Be careful, though, in taking things to be totally black. Isn't it better to to make interesting elements there that can be discovered in an actual print?

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

I reworked this one in B&W - I enjoyed working on a landscape that seems so Alien to me.

Rework of Mike Spinaks picture - Editing Only Mark Hampton​

Mark,

This is a an engaging version that should print very well. Be careful, though, in taking things to be totally black. Isn't it better to to make interesting elements there that can be discovered in an actual print?

Asher

Asher,

I have no idea how Black works with this medium, never mind a print! My measure was 4 black .... seamed ok in this case – is it 2 black in parts? where ?

cheers

 

[Rachel Foster]

Both color and b&w work with this image.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

I have no idea how Black works with this medium, never mind a print! My measure was 4 black .... seemed ok in this case – is it 2 black in parts? where ?

Mark,

Mark,

It's just a caution of mine not any negative criticism of your excellent work here with Mike's fabulous picture! I have disappointed myself by making the blacks lose their detail. Unless one is going for a real set of simple layers in the far distance or silhouettes against bright sources, in general it's something to be aware of.

Asher

 

[Mike Spinak]

Thank you all.

Here's a more recent version, of my own (which I'm still not entirely satisfied with):

Bart's is not that far from what I had in mind, especially the top part (even though I still don't have a perfect sense, within myself, of what I want for the definitive version of this picture). Mark's version is fascinating, and has compelled me to explore the black and white possibilities with this picture more seriously, in more depth.

Sandrine, I like yours, too, though – upon seeing it – I find myself preferring less yellow in the sky.

 

[Ivan Garcia]

My version.
I've done this very quickly and so there may be some white halos around masking perimeters. Still, you get the idea

Original (for comparison)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thank you all.

Here's a more recent version, of my own (which I'm still not entirely satisfied with):

Bart's is not that far from what I had in mind, especially the top part (even though I still don't have a perfect sense, within myself, of what I want for the definitive version of this picture). Mark's version is fascinating, and has compelled me to explore the black and white possibilities with this picture more seriously, in more depth.

Sandrine, I like yours, too, though – upon seeing it – I find myself preferring less yellow in the sky.

Mike,

Glad to have you here! This picture has given a lot of pleasure and a big challenge.

Asher

 

[Mike Spinak]

Taking a cue from Mark, here's my latest version:

This was done entirely in Adobe Camera RAW. I did a black and white conversion which lightened the yellows and oranges, and darkened the blues. Then I did a curves adjustment, slightly lifting the very toe of the curve, to keep some detail in the darkest areas, then lowering the "ankle" of the curve, to darken the near mountain, then raising the curve about 2/3s to 3/4 of the way up, to brighten the crepuscular rays. Then I increased the contrast, overall.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Taking a cue from Mark, here's my latest version:

Mike,

This is a great process of improvement. We're all learning a lot from the process and also about the picture. I like the fact that you took care to protect the dark tones and maintain detail in those mid field black rocks. This way, the more one examines the picture, the more payoff there is, as it should be.

The detail of the black rocks is, I think, so important. In this picture, such interesting areas allow a person to be drawn in to the picture and discover paths for the eye to wander and the imagination be switched on. I believe that might also be a function of art.

What have you done, so far, in sharpening? I'm especially interesting in how you might have or should sharpen.

Asher

 

[Mike Spinak]

Hi, Asher,

Thanks. For sharpening of this small, online version, I used Smart Sharpen, with an amount of 150, and a radius of 0.2, set to remove Gaussian Blur, and set to "More Accurate". (I'm no expert at sharpening for online display.)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,

Thanks. For sharpening of this small, online version, I used Smart Sharpen, with an amount of 150, and a radius of 0.2, set to remove Gaussian Blur, and set to "More Accurate". (I'm no expert at sharpening for online display.)

Bart has some very interesting ideas. He suggests that for Photoshop sharpening one should do a Gaussian blur at 0.25 pixels per unit of reduction in size and use ordinary bicubic for the downsizing. However, he feels that using Lightroom, no Gaussian blur seems to be needed as the sharpening there is that good!

I feel that one should consider sharpening locally to the extent that that each unique region requires. So one can use a separate layer for sharpening and a different percent black brush on the mask for showing through unsharpened areas. Or else one can select each zone separately and have a sharpening just for that selection.

When I have sharpened, I return to the final image and reduce the sharpening in major edges so one reduces artificiality.

Asher

 

[Sebastian Nibisz]

Hi,

My version.

Regards,
Sebastian

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi,

My version.

Regards,
Sebastian

Sebastian,

This view is unique and gives a different feeling to the picture as it opens up everything. Likely with a RAW file to start with, you might do all sorts of interesting presentations as you SNS-HDR software allows. It's a delight to have you participate in this study of processing such an interesting picture. I'd love to see your work starting with the Mike's RAW file!

Asher

 

[Mike Spinak]

Hi, Asher,

Thanks for your thoughts about sharpening. I agree that sharpening, at its best, is both picture specific, and local to specific parts of the picture.

By the way, I don't make my RAW files available.

 

[Mike Spinak]

Hi,

My version.

Regards,
Sebastian

Thank you, Sebastian.

While this is a valid interpretation, it's not what I'm looking for. It's brighter than I want, the light is too yellow for my taste, and the overall feel just isn't right for me.

I do appreciate your efforts.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,

Thanks for your thoughts about sharpening. I agree that sharpening, at its best, is both picture specific, and local to specific parts of the picture.

By the way, I don't make my RAW files available.

Your right, Mike! I too almost never give out RAW files! I Just whimsically mused that it would be great to have someone like Sebastian, who has developed perhaps the most important new HDR RAW processor currently available, with interesting properties for looking into shadows to be able to offer new opportunities for this very interesting scene. One can download SNS-HDR from Sebastian's website*. Bart has found this program to be very useful. I'd love to see you explore the processing of your exceptional image though this new processor. Of course, you won't open up the dark areas like switching on a searchlight! I know that's not your intent or esthetic choice.

Still, you will, I bet, be able to extract far more detail in these interesting areas dark that are the magnet to one's presence, (revisiting and exploring the picture), after the general outlines of the image are familiar.

Once you have the detail, your tone mapping can be in the darkest blacks according to your own conceptualization.

Asher

* note that the page is in Polish but you can get English by a drop down menu in the upper right corner.

 

[Joachim Bolte]

mine

 

[Asher Kelman]

mine

Joachim,

I like this for the background and the lighting. The foreground rocks are troubling to me as they seem to be to evenly sharply defined. Don't you think that as in the background, rendering should vary by depth?

What's your view of this?

Asher

 

[Joachim Bolte]

I would say that the picture is taken at near-infinity depth of field, according to the sharpness and edge-definition of the first 'background mountain'. The fall-of we see in sharpness is not caused by a shallow DOF, but by atmospheric haze, the phenomenon that also gives you those beautifull rays of light.

At short distance, atmospheric conditions do not play a major role, so in my opinion the foreground should be entirely sharp.

What I DID notice is that the original JPG is probably sharpened already, and I think it is oversharpened because of the edge haloes on the background mountains. I upped the contrast a little in my version, and the haloes do stand out even more.

I agree that we could do more with the RAW, of maybe a bigger JPG that is only WB-corrected (or not even that) and minimally sharpened for the demosaicing blur.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I would say that the picture is taken at near-infinity depth of field, according to the sharpness and edge-definition of the first 'background mountain'. The fall-of we see in sharpness is not caused by a shallow DOF, but by atmospheric haze, the phenomenon that also gives you those beautifull rays of light.

Joachim,

Of course you are right about the DOF here and the effect of the mist. These are phenomena which our brains have learnt to process as meaning great distance.

We need signals for depth. The eye and brain are not the same as the lens in showing focus. So equal edges tend to give the impression of similar distance, no matter what the camera delivers. Here's the issue: the nearest objects should, in general, be sharper than more distant object to give the best impression of depth along with signals of perspective.

So while a sharp and deep DOF will gather more detail, one should consider intervening in the presentation so that the sharpness fades with distance.

Asher

 

[Joachim Bolte]

Hi Asher,

Mhhh... don't know, really...

As far as 'subject' goes, I don't think the sunbeams are the only important part in this picture. The rocks are equally important, and give a nice complementation to the hazy blue mountains regarding their color and contrast. Only thing that is similar is the sharpness. But then again, in landscape shooting, isn't that supposed to be the case?

In my opinion, the subject should be sharp, and the background CAN be unsharp. In this picture the subject seems 'the landscape' to me.

But you may differ offcourse.

 

[Asher Kelman]

In my opinion, the subject should be sharp, and the background CAN be unsharp. In this picture the subject seems 'the landscape' to me.

Joachim,

Look at landscape paintings. There's a distribution of sharpness and detail from front to back. When photography started, the effort was made to get as much information as possible. Soon however, the lenses where too good and things became harshly sharp. Also illumination of hte perphery lost attention for the subject.

Then we started to get brilliantly designed soft focus lenses and the great custom in dodging and burning to vignette and build a picture that directed interest. The camera merely documents where it's pointed. We have to build a picture. We do that by finessing the importance of things both before and after releasing the shutter.

For a survey for land use or for crime scenes, astrophotography, science in general, identifying every person in a soccer stadium crowd to find missing felons, cameras, in almost all cases, need to be as and evenly illuminated as possible.

Today, with megapixel races and lenses with even illumination to the edges and RAW workflow that corrects things anyway, we are faced with an image which is directed by technology of uniformity, not esthetics and ranking of importance. That's our job!

Unless one is doing portraits with a wide aperture or images of landscape with compromised DOF, or special lighting or composition, we really need to review what we have. This is the question we have to ask ourselves time and time again, for each and every picture and each and every part of the image we want to present.

The camera-made the decisions, do they express the feelings we find so special about the subject or do we need to intervene?

I prefer to see folks fingerprints on the picture in ranking all effects possible.

Asher

 

[Joachim Bolte]

Still "hmmm" to me...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Still "hmmm" to me...

Glad you explored this but the gradient should be sharpest in front and then gradually become softer. It appears that you have done the opposite. Having the very lowest edge soft is no problem But major foreground rocks can already be sharp. Then very gradually edges get softer.

Asher

 

[Joachim Bolte]

Aha, that's what you mean... But the way you would like it your background would be so out of focus that the sunrays wouldn't be barely recognizable... and that is what this picture is all about.