Help needed!!!

This image has an obvious defect which needs expert Photoshop help,

and I need to learn how to remedy it from an expert Photoshopper. I

solicit your expert help and if you rework it to show how your

technique 'fixes' the obvious problem, so much the better. You may

also e-mail me at johncrosley@photo.net; I would be most appreciate

of any help -- I like the capture (taken from an airplane window,

but marred by defects from variable airplane window contrast -- also

taken from an aisle seat across two seats). I am thankful for any

help, as my Photoshopping skills here are outclassed. Thanks.

John (oh, for a post in the end, I must do any Photoshopping

personally to keep with the rules, so I must know what steps you

have done if you manipulate it, and be able to do it myself). jc

This is probably the Rhine at the Switzerland, Liechtenstein border, if my reconnoitering abilities serve me right, though I have no absolute way of knowing. Trip from Spain to Vienna. No other rivers in the alps that would otherwise match. Probably the town is Vaduz, Liechtenstein (Vadutz is how it's pronounced, a town of bankers, trusts, etc., and with some refineries nearby -- it's where the Swiss put their 'secret' money).

 

How can I 'rescue' this photo?

 

John (Crosley)

Look at this

for starter...go image..adjustment...select Level...individually select red green blue...on the scale on left drag the stopper into the darkened area on the histogram. you will see the change in the image. try moving the center stopper as well. go to each color and try differnt setting until you get what u want. maybe go to filters and use sharpen..blur...select an area lighten darken...feather...inverse etc.

hope it works out well.

cheers

Make a custom white gradient overly.

My gradient formula was:

 

Color white at:

location:0%,15%,30%,100%

 

Transparencies at those locations set to:

Opacity:5%,8%,34%,0% respectively

 

This worked really well to get rid of you dark patch down the left of center. With some tweaking it would be perfect. Email me with your addy if you'd like to see my results or want me to send the grad to you.

 

Chadman

 

 

 

It's most pleasing, though it's 'sepia' which I usually eschew (mine is blue color and I like it).

 

but how did you get to that point. I can't post your version and I can only post what I do myself.

 

without a clue as to how you got there, I am only admiring of how well you have transformed my image, but clueless on how I can do it so I can post it, if I choose to do it in a 'monochrome' way.

 

So, how did you do it?

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

It is partly a matter of 'selecting' that is a problem, which led me to Chad's idea of 'gradients' below yours. The great problem it seems is 'selecting' something so ill-defined as a slightly darker area with ill-defined edges which does not show well unless one looks at the thumbnail and shows not so well close-up on blowup.

 

I think it's attractive enough (and I post so few landscapes), I do want to post it.

 

I do like your ideas, especially going to levels and separating into colors, which I hadn't thought of, but the 'selecting' is a problem for me, and it stymies me.

 

Any more precise ideas about that?

 

John (Crosley)

I would like to see your results and learn how to interpret your numbers as I'm clueless about gradients. I need some instruction.

 

I e-mailed you.

 

Thank you so much, as I think this may beat the problem of 'selection' noted above.

 

John (Crosley)

This photo got 11 ratings, despite the 'Request' noted above, and is now on my most-viewed photo gallery.

 

I intend to take it down, but I will copy all the attached comments and a copy of the defective photo, I think and post them all under a comment to preserve all those comments from those who have offered their help when I post the 'finished' version. And for the 'attached' workup in 'sepia' or 'monochrome' I'll attempt to copy and post that also, as I like it also, or e-mail the maker and ask him to repost it when I repost the photo.

 

I value highly those who take the trouble to offer help and think that removing a photo should not erase comments and that generosity should be rewarded.

 

This is just another 'genre' from the 'chameleon of Photo.net' -- another type of photo from me -- you never know what sort of photo to expect from me next, though 'street' is my first love.

 

Thanks for all those who have helped and to those who have something more to offer -- your future offers are still welcome, as this is not fixed yet.

 

John (Crosley)

Chad Shumway has worked out a tutorial on gradients (apparently just for me) that is better than anything I've viewed in any book on Photoshop.

 

I urged him to do more such tutorials and publish them, his tutorial was so clear and so good.

 

He's a man of great generosity, great clarity of mind, and an excellent communicator.

 

Chad, thank you so much.

 

Within a week, this image will be taken down and a replacement (fixed) image will be posted, edited entirely by me with my newfound and newly taught knowledge of 'gradients' being used.

 

Again, Chad, thank you so much.

 

John (Crosley)

I actually like it as it is.

John thats a great picture. I have seen quite a few pictures like this before, but yours has so much more depth and like infinite gradiations in the hills. really beautiful!

This photo is deeply flawed, and it shows more on thumbnail with darkness in the upper two-thirds -- extending to the lower portion of the left, and also some on the right, in vertical stripes.

 

Chad S. showed me how to use 'gradients' to remove those stripes, so I can post a perfect photo.

 

It's just too good a photo not to 'fix' its deficiencies. This was posted solely to ask for help, and was posted with intention to take down -- that it has 14 ratings is a complete surprise. I had an aisle seat, a vacant center seat and had to ask the window seat person to sit back while I took a variety of such shots as we passed over the alps -- it's amazing there aren't reflection problems from the plastic airplane windows.

 

In any case, the windows were streaked and the streaks show up as dark clumps/stripes or darkness on this photo (and others). I think cleaned up it is salable, and Chad S. has been kind enough to help me byb working up custom tutorials in gradients that were most professional and capable of being published, and so his help has been invaluable. He's probably got a 'genius' IQ, (150 or above for sure) despite what he describes as 'minimal' schooling. Reminds me that Bill Gates quit Harvard because it was 'too slow' and he wanted to goof around with computers.

 

I'm glad you like it, but look at the thumbnail and you'll see the defect more clearly. I liked it very much as did the airplane passengers who saw it. They stopped wondering why I had those huge lenses (70~200 plus 1.4 x tele-extender on D2X and 2x tele-extender with 80-200 and 2x tele-extender.

 

Thanks for sharing your view; it's always welcome.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes, I figured out it's probably got the makings of a 'great picture' which is why I'm going to the great trouble to ask for Photoshopping tutelage so I can 'rescue it'.

 

Bill Gates' Microsoft XP and other editions of his operating systems offers a sample photo of hills with about four gradations of ridges, all in blue and curving -- very simple and attractive.

 

You are right -- this just keeps going on and on and on, and I also think it's more attractive.

 

If I am right, the plane is just over the northernmost town in Liechtenstein just to the East side of the Liechtenstein--Swiss Border, an area I know well, having driven it very often.

 

And as such, portions of Austria might be visible from the left, though barely, and the mountains, foreground would be Liechtenstein, the river would be the upper Rhine, and it would be heading toward Chur, Switzerland, also an area I know well, above which there are great ski resorts reached by twisty roads that scare the living s*it out of me, which the Swiss drive at 50 mph on ice while I sweat bullets, being a little acrophibic. There is a railroads that goes into those mountains too, and the special Glacier Exprress has its Eastern terminus at Chur, wihch would be at left center behind a mountain next to the Rhine at center, left or a little higher behind a mountain.

 

Italy would be over the last range of mountains, and Switzerland on the right and in all the middle to far distance (if I have it right, and I do know Switzerland pretty well, but I had just awakened up from a little shuteye, saw this, grabbed for my cameras, and asked the person at the window seat to sit back very far and snapped away. Luckily my cameras had a high shutter speed (and vibration reduction and the lens had 'active' vibration reduction as there was some vibration from the airplane that could have introduced blur to even a fast shutter speed capture, despite primary Vibration Reduction.)

 

Thanks to Nikon's plan-ahead thinking for their 70~200 V.R. E.D. lens (with tele-adapter.)

 

I made a number of captures, and this was just one of them; and adjusted them all for contast; because of scratches on the airline window which cut contrast plus haze over the mountains and high/thin clouds which also cut contrast. But not too much.

 

I looked at the final workup and was stunned.

 

I can't wait to post the final capture.

 

I intend to copy all these remarks when I take down this photo (I don't post the same photo twice) and append them in my own remark to the new, revised, post.

 

And also to give credit where credit is due, to Chad S. for his method for cleaning up this photo and for custom putting together a tutorial on gradients to enable me to do it myself (required by the rules).

 

I seldom post landscapes, but want to be the compleat photographer, and this is my bid.

 

Thanks for your endorsement, Bilal.

 

John (Crosley)

John, now that I'm looking at this on a good panel (I viewed it using my laptop in non ideal lighting earlier), I can clearly see the flaw. I thought for a moment that you were worried about the weighting of dark to the bottom left - hence my comment. Good luck with the gradients, it's a very simple fix, but highly effective.

Simple for you, maybe, but I've been scared to death of such things as gradients, and suchly, not being a Photshoppe, but a photographer, and my reaction to a less than perfect shot, usually, is to go out and take another.

 

However, there is the rare circumstance, as here, where there are no 'do-overs' and something's good enough to save or rescue.

 

So, I put out a call for help, and I got a wonderful response.

 

That's part of the magic of Photo.net.

 

And a benefit of the rule is that you have to do it yourself. (so I have to learn to do it myself.)

 

;-))

 

John (Crosley)

...Less is more! I love it as is.In addition I can read quite well but I am as ignorant about PS as you, therefore any suggestions would be meaningless. Beautiful image it conveys a multitude of feelings.

 

 

Ciao.

I deserve credit for waking up and sticking my lenses across three seats of an airplane row in the morning, and recognizing this scene and actually having the lenses on my camera (yes, two lenses, a main and a extender lens). Other than that, it required not much work -- no more than any scenic.

 

The hard shots are the 'street' shots and catching people 'in the act' whatever that 'act' might be. And that's particularly rewarding.

 

But I also can take a scenic/landscape too, and I hope, well.

 

John (Crosley)

I don't know if you changed it yet or not, but add me to the list of people that like it like I see it now. The gradient from dark in the bottom to light in the top really makes me think of all the stuff you see when you look at anything related to color and its theory. Could almost be used for doing some painting test!

I haven't changed it yet, and will try to preserve all comments when I do.

 

This photo suffers from left to right 'clumping' or one or two vertical 'bands' of excessive grayness/darkness which spoils it, and is best seen on thumbnail but which is very obvious on certain views.

 

The 'clumping' is most noticeable, upper left, but it's a band that goes from top to bottom, left of center, and also a lesser band, right.

 

Your analysis appears not to make allowance for that and draws on the photo's strength -- its continual change in gradation from bottom to top, for which there is no problem at all, and that I wouldn't change for anything -- that's why it's posted!

 

And that's why it will be reposted once cleaned up. Member Chad S. has made a tutorial which shows ME how to clean it up myself, and I have to summon up the time to work on it, -- which will be several hours -- so I can become proficient with gradients. His tutorial, cooked up obviously in a short time, is a masterpiece of clarity, all illustrated -- all custom for me. He's missing his calling not writing Photoshop books of tips (with circles and arrows for us know-nothings and I've told him so and tell you the same thing).

 

I was astomished when I saw the view out the airplane window, though it was less contrasty than posted -- took the photo, adjusted the contrast to present, and was overwhelmed. But the 'clumpiness' caught me, which is why I asked for help, and I got it, but even got favorable reviews, which tells me this will be an enduring photo (even though it's midway through the TRP engine.)

 

There's something timeless about this photo.

 

There are a variety of photos (even in the Windows XP 'my pictures' gallery is one simple one similar), so that it's almost a cliche, but none show the progression of hills and mountains so clearly as this. They just keep on rising and rising into the distance. Literally this is a view from over the German/Swiss (Lac Leman) Bodensee (I think) across Liechtenstein, across Switzerland/Liechtenstein all the way to the Italian border in the early morning down the Rhine River Valley (upper) with Chur (pronounced Koor and blowing through the K as the Swiss do for a 'soft' K) -- a major resort base, being hidden just above center left on the left banks of the very upper Rhine (where it's got a gravel bed, not navigable and flows swiftly in Spring with snowmelt).

 

What sets this photo apart is it's taken from 35,000 feet or so, and by adjusting contrast, I was able to get rid of the haziness caused by airplane window glass. Plus it was almost a new airplane, thanks to Austrian Air.

 

One thing that sets apart some of the higher-rated photos is a sense of completeness and the ability of the photo to 'draw in' the viewer in part by its complexity. Here, this simple photo does so by its sheer repetition. It's a master of that; Ridgeline by ridgeline overlapping and intersecting in almost complex patterns, with a river running through it to connect foreground with background, and some haze to show 'stillness' of morning.

 

I have others, but they'll stay on my hard drive and DVDs I think.

 

So, Stephane, I think you just did not see the major defect, perhaps blinded by the multiple ligthness/shadows and overlapping ridgelines -- it's only when you view in thumbnail or step away that you see how flawed it is.

 

But I'll repost it (and post this original) and you'll be able to see the difference -- it'll gently knock you out of your socks.

 

I love it when you stop by.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I like it when I have the time to stop by! Your photo always challenge me in my critique abilities and I like it a lot. In fact, I'm currently trying to write a document to show people in the Picture This group how to give comments. Not that I try to re-invent the wheel, but I sometime feel that people are sometime lacking the emotional side when they critique photos.

 

And this is why I still think that your photo has no major issues. On the emotional side, it is really bringing something. Yes, it might have some flaws when blown up big on the screen, but as a photo, everything works well in it.

 

If I would suggesting any changes to this photo, it would be a simple crop of the top portion, maybe up to the last visible layer of clouds (or is it still mountains?).

 

As a note, I will not re-read my post. Too tired after a big night of feasting...So please excuse me is some parts of my post do not make sense.

 

But I wanted to comment again on this photo. And I will look at it again tomorrow. Maybe seeing it at 100% resolution would help me see the flaws you are seeing in it.

You make several good points . . . one of which I've overlooked entirely and that is the 'emotional content of this photo' as I've treated it almost entirely as a 'pretty photo' and without else. It may have some grander meaning, such as an 'overview of life' or how one approaches infinity or some such, but my disciminatory abilities stop short of that point.

 

For me, in a formal, compositional sense, it represents an interesting (most interesting) use of the device of repetition . . . almost ad infinitum.

 

And the remark you make about cropping is an interesting one . . . to crop at the top, yet in fact you are unsure whether the top is mountains or clouds, and just for that reason alone, I wouldn't crop as I want to maintain that ambiguity.

 

I suppose I should participate in 'Picture This' as it seems the place for 'secure' photographers to post since they don't get individual credit, but some day, I think I want to do 'stock photos' or 'assignment photos' and this work may be my 'stock in trade' as well as everything else I shoot, so I'm protective of attaching my name to my work -- something Picture This (if I understand the ruels) does not allow. Effectively, if I understand correctly, if one posts a photo in 'Picture This' its ownership is somewhat muddied and the only sure thing is that Photo.net gets a copyright or at least the license to use the photo. I have possible future plans for much of my photography, including possible publication in books, etc., and don't want to interfere with that.

 

(Self-publishing even is something that has become possible at a more-or-less affordable price and there are templates for that and self-publishers being advertised in British Photo magazines who apparently do quality work for less than $60 per volume and will print even one single volume for that price, with quality content -- if the photos are quality.)

 

I love to critique and think I do a pretty good job of it, but I'm more interested in critiquing my own work, as becoming a better photographer is my personal goal, and that relates to the way I take photographs -- not someone else.

 

That's one reason I give such a big welcome to anyone who participates in my comments (besides my being a friendly, helpful guy to anyone who shows my photography any intestest at all, in part because I'm still amazed anyone would see in it what I do -- as I like it very much, but why should anyone else?)

 

So, the commentators here (and the raters) are treated well, because they continually teach me lessons, yourself included, and the ratings too -- and if you've watched recent posts by me -- especially the 'viewership numbers' for low-rated photos -- the ones you don't expect will be 'hits' but people keep viewing over and over despite low or few and low ratings, but still get the clicks over and over and over, compared to their higher-rated cousins and neighbors in the galleries.

 

Advertisers have their 'focus groups' and special devices they place under supermarket shelves to track eye movement of shoppers exposed to this product or another.

 

As a photographer, I have Photo.net, and it's been a huge success in teaching me a large number of things through its ratings, its commentaries and its 'views' -- and make no bones about it, the 'views' are very important in a long-running folder because they show which photos people actually do 'click' on rather than being 'served', and as such, there are lessons to be learned.

 

So, Photo.net is for me my 'focus group' -- my spy camera below the product shelf and my product is my photography and the way people see it and react to it.

 

And commentators like yourself are especially welcome because in your educated articulateness, you can teach me many things in just a few words about my own photographs, and also teach me more about the art of photography -- things I cannot learn on my own ever, which are natural to you -- things you just assume but are unnatural to me.

 

For these things, your comments and those like you (the highly articulate comments) are of enormous value.

 

And that you completely overlook the severe flaw in this photo is also of interest to me, as I saw it, but my answer was 'remove it' but still I considered it a very good photo.

 

It's just that having once been a photo editor, I knew that with the flaw, it just 'wouldn't sell' in a publishing sense. Landscape photos have to be perfect; this one isn't yet. It will be.

 

Thanks for taking the time and the trouble and please come back again and again; you're very welcome and I learn something from every comment you make.

 

John (Crosley)