When PP is overdone or too much

[hinman]

<p>Robin, thanks for you suggestion. I will try your version as soon as time allows. The last picture just happens to be my <strong><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/">flickr photostream main page </a></strong>and it is a screen shoot in reverse order of the photos for this discussion. I like it for what it is. I personally don't look for a perfect picture or perfect tone as I like off-balance that may be thought provoking to some and mediocre at best to others. The inclusion of the b&w photo is my off-balance ingredient. I like things random in a mosaic without much of a purpose and thoughtful insights.</p>

<p>And the same principle was applied in this mosaic with an off-balance b&w photo. I am not copying the idea from others and this is my instinct in mosaic and collage making<br /> <a title="Fall Mosaic by Hin Man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3778/10929873495_cbec1ed0e3_b.jpg" alt="Fall Mosaic" width="750" height="600" /></a><br /> <a title="Fall Mosaic LR Print Module by Hin Man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/10932474435_485d5bd0ac_b.jpg" alt="Fall Mosaic LR Print Module" width="791" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>I kept thinking of many of the inputs from this thread. It is very useful and engaging conversation. I kept thinking what Guus and Rob were telling me to be 'everything is permissible' and 'find your own style'. And I also listen closely to Jemal, Matt and other similar comments in not making PP the main point in the picture.</p>

[hinman]

<p><br />After few days of re-examining my changes, I have to pick one favorite of those PP pictures. It is Tim's choice of Kodachrome like color on this one on the fishing pier that were shot at twilight lighting late after sunset.<br /><br /><br /> <a title="Pier After Sunset by Hin Man, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5487/11052573036_fb41f9a441_b.jpg" alt="Pier After Sunset" width="1024" height="678" /></a><br /> k-5 and FA 43mm f/1.9 limited @ f/2.5<br />1/100 sec, 43mm, f/2.5, iso 800, -0.3 Ev<br /><br /><br /> It strikes me as reasonable edit at first but the more I look at it, the more that I like the vivid color combination. The residual sunlight can be seen in the reflection of the lamp post and reasonable good detail is retained for the gentleman arranging his fishing gear. And the exaggerated orange tone in the horizon is not overpowering like the blue tones in some of my edits in other pictures. I don't have the original uploaded but you can take my words that the unedited picture is dull and flat with underexposure due to late into the shooting after sunset and my dial down on -0.3 Ev.</p>

[jemal.yarbrough]

<p>I think Robin Smith gave excellent editing tips. Most times we spend hours "editing" photos without actually spending any time at all on the idea of editing the photos from the perspective of does this photo actually work and need to be shown as my best work or should it be put somewhere else never to be seen again. That is the last and most crucial part. I love your first leafs collage. Masterful. Tightly edited in terms of which photos to use. Less is more applies to this form of editing too. It is something that I struggle with. But when I apply it ruthlessly, then, and only then, do I really show my best work instead of the work that I worked hard to make better, but failed at it work. Master that and the rest of your editing issues will fix themselves.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>Competently right level of presentation - "mosaic". Thanks for showing </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Google indexing is on its game. Went searching for Kodachrome shots of sunsets using Google Images and guess what shows up at the top of the page... http://www.google.com/search?q=Kodachrome+shots&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=keWaUp3KMojE2gWvxICYAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1283&bih=970#newwindow=1&q=Kodachrome+shots+of+sunsets&tbm=isch&imgdii=_ ...Hin's fishing dock scene.<br>

I still can't find a film shot close to looking like Hin's color treatment but I know I've seen it somewhere. It reminds me of color I saw flipping through 1980's coffee table books of sunsets. </p>

[hinman]

<p>@Tim, that is very amazing find on the link from google image search. The PP has a lucky element on it and I probably won't make it in another time on the similar photo. I can't even remember the color filter that I use and the few minor adjustments that I made to live the darkness and dullness of the original picture. When I search on Flickr on Kodachrome -- this is the <a href=" with most interesting sorted order</a>.<br /><br />This thread of discussion has opened up new learning opportunities and enthusiasm for me and PP is like another art form that can bring joy and beauty to photography.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Wow! Hin, thanks for posting that Flickr Kodachrome link. All those are Kodachrome?</p>

<p>That gorgeous but a bit over processed "Lago Di san Domenico" bridge image is the kind of over the top clarity I always fear I imbue to too many Raw digital captures in order to rid the appearance I'm looking at the image through thick glass, a look I've come to associate with scanned film from my experience.</p>

<p>Below is an example of my over clarifying PP habits as I try to mimic the character of light imbued by those rare crispy, clear days that occur usually after a rain. I don't see this done to the best effect without it looking like over cranked HDR, but at least I'll let you all decide if I went too far in PP.</p>

<p>The first one is just ACR defaults adjusting WB, applying camera profile with +30 Clarity and an increase of +60 Exposure slider in order to show this base "looking through thick glass" lack of clarity that most accept as looking finished. The second PP is my attempt at showing the crispyness of that particular time of day under a bright sun.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And here's my attempt at communicating the character of light I saw when I took the shot which made such an impression on me I committed this look to memory because I knew how dull and unmemorable it would look using ACR defaults. </p><div></div>

[hinman]

<p>@Tim, that is a fine shot and I don't see any HDR effect in the shot. Your edited shot has much better detail in the white feather</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks for the feedback confirming my eyes aren't playing tricks on me, Hin. I applied the edits using CS3 PV2003 whose Fill slider combined with Clarity tends to induce an unnatural HDR look that we've all become familiar with and most likely the reason for Adobe coming up with PV2012 in an attempt to correct.</p>

<p>I have LR4 PV2012 that makes this harder to get this look, but because I've become mindful after years of reworking, stepping away from the computer and coming back with a fresh eye I find the "crispy" daylight look with PV2003 allows me to do this much faster with more subtle control. I think I've redone that image at least five times due to being shocked looking at my attempts with a fresh eye and my not knowing what Adobe's PV2003 is doing to the image and my eyesight.</p>

<p>To see what I'm talking about with regard to the effects on eyesight do a visual experiment by staring at the top ACR defaults version for a while and then quickly switch to the bottom finished version. In first edits I had to go back and forth doing this visual experiment in honing each tweak in ACR 4.6 (namely Black Level, Fill, Contrast & Clarity) until the visual shock (i.e. Xerox copy or 50's TV Kinescope video high pass filter effect) was reduced.</p>

<p>I was also concerned that variations of other's calibrated/profiled displays would either amplify or reduce this visual effect which is why I chose this image as an example to post for discussion.</p>