I came across these on another board and I have never been able to get a picture to look this good. I suspect it's my PP technique that's lacking, if anyone knows how to go about this please chime in. Once again these pics are not mine and I am not sure if it's ok to link these, if not please just remove the link.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/553752

Though he is probably doing some PP work, especially saturation boost, it really comes down to lighting. All of those shots are in the "golden hour" when the lighting becomes magical - for lack of a better word. With some graduated ND filters and a tripod I don't see any reason why those shots necessarily scream photochop.

They are spectacular photos, however.

Ted's hit it spot on.
While PP helps a ton, waiting for the perfect conditions has a lot to do with it.

Also he's either using filters (grad NDs), combining multiple looks of a RAW, some serious shadow/highlight work or HDR to get the exposure that perfect. It's not just out of the camera.

That's kind of my point, these are not out of the camera. I used multiple exposures combined and sometimes tone mapped afterwards but damn these are just so good. I am just interested what kind of steps need to be taken in order to approach this work quality.

Although I didn't read completely through the FM thread, a common tool for landscape photography is a TS lens, so it considering the quality, I'd be more surprised if one wasn't used to get these (to achieve sharp focus from front to back).

As far as PP... well, each lighting range (lows, mids, highs) could've been individually developed/stacked/HDR'd, with all the stacks then being combined/stacked to make the final image... all starting from a 7-step auto-bracketed sequence through a TS lens

Whatever was done, I say the results were worth it.

I don't think a TS lens is needed for these. Wide angle with a small aperture would accomplish the depth of field fine for most if not all of those that I looked at.

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

That's kind of my point, these are not out of the camera. I used multiple exposures combined and sometimes tone mapped afterwards but damn these are just so good. I am just interested what kind of steps need to be taken in order to approach this work quality.

Let's play a game. You post one of your pics that you want to look better and let us have at it with PS to see who can make it look the best. The winner reveals his/her PP steps.

Haha that could yield some interesting results.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Let's play a game. You post one of your pics that you want to look better and let us have at it with PS to see who can make it look the best. The winner reveals his/her PP steps.

sounds like fun, someone post something!!!

as for the TS-Es, they are fun and can help with DOF a ton, with only small pictures to view you can't bet on the DOF in the full sized image. IE I've learned how to make just about any shot look tack sharp at 800 pixels. Not saying those aren't sharp IRL, but it's easy to make an 800px wide shot super sharp like that...

Impressive none the less.

Here's another photographer I bookmarked a while ago for some inspiring shots with awesome sharpness:
http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/

Ben

Definitely agree Ben. At 800pix it's easy, but even for (most of) these photos I don't think a TS would be absolutely necessary for good sharpness. That said, I really am tempted to go with a TS-E for my next lens. The question being which. I'd like both the wide and the tele ones eventually.

Nowhere did I say that a TS lens is "absolutely necessary". It just happens to be an excellent choice for landscape photography, that's all. For all we know, and however improbable, a pinhole camera could've been used to get those pics...

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

That's kind of my point, these are not out of the camera. I used multiple exposures combined and sometimes tone mapped afterwards but damn these are just so good. I am just interested what kind of steps need to be taken in order to approach this work quality.

Let's play a game. You post one of your pics that you want to look better and let us have at it with PS to see who can make it look the best. The winner reveals his/her PP steps.

I am game, see what you guys can do

I said "absolutely necessary" in response to Ben, not you. I agree they're great though, I don't have one now but I always enjoyed using 4x5 rail systems for their incredible adjustments.

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

Originally Posted by tardypizza

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

That's kind of my point, these are not out of the camera. I used multiple exposures combined and sometimes tone mapped afterwards but damn these are just so good. I am just interested what kind of steps need to be taken in order to approach this work quality.

Let's play a game. You post one of your pics that you want to look better and let us have at it with PS to see who can make it look the best. The winner reveals his/her PP steps.

I am game, see what you guys can do

In all fairness, anyone making an attempt at a picture like this needs more pixels to work with. Care to link to the RAW version, or at least an untouched, full-sized jpg?

Yeah, hard to work with such a small image, but here's a quick go:

Originally Posted by mkfotos

In all fairness, anyone making an attempt at a picture like this needs more pixels to work with. Care to link to the RAW version, or at least an untouched, full-sized jpg?

Agreed. At least a larger version, if not RAW or full size.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Here's another photographer I bookmarked a while ago for some inspiring shots with awesome sharpness:
http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/

Ben

First off, Ben, that's the same guy. All of these are taken by Marc Adamus who is easily, at least in my opinion, one of the best landscape photographers of our time.

I've spent quite a while looking at Marc's work, as he is one of few photographers I look to in awe. He's managed to combine incredible talent with great PP skill to create truly near-perfect images.

Basically, he creates these images by capturing a fantastic scene during the right lighting situation, first and foremost. Then, I'm fairly sure (though he'd never admit it... who would?) a lot of processing is applied in a tasteful, dramatic fashion. The final image is one to truly behold... I strive for my work to hold a candle to his.

From what I can tell, a grad. ND is used in nearly all of his images and most are single exposures... he does very little, if any, HDR. Also, his gear is a Canon 5D, 17-40L, and 70-200 f/4 L. He uses Singh Ray grad NDs.

Hope that helps.

- Scott

I've seen some of his work elsewhere, it really is often quite spectacular.

Originally Posted by Stime187

From what I can tell, a grad. ND is used in nearly all of his images and most are single exposures... he does very little, if any, HDR. Also, his gear is a Canon 5D, 17-40L, and 70-200 f/4 L. He uses Singh Ray grad NDs.

Hope that helps.

- Scott

That's a pretty big clue Scott, thanks: http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html

Tardy, thanks
here is a bigger version
[img width=533 height=800]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v673/Calcvictim/Portland%20Maine/Port_26-1.jpg[/img]

Originally Posted by mkfotos

Originally Posted by Stime187

From what I can tell, a grad. ND is used in nearly all of his images and most are single exposures... he does very little, if any, HDR. Also, his gear is a Canon 5D, 17-40L, and 70-200 f/4 L. He uses Singh Ray grad NDs.

Hope that helps.

- Scott

That's a pretty big clue Scott, thanks: http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html

I checked those out, quite a bit pricier than the Cokin ones which while likely not as good (I'd have to test them) are good enough for most people IMO.

Originally Posted by Stime187

First off, Ben, that's the same guy. All of these are taken by Marc Adamus who is easily, at least in my opinion, one of the best landscape photographers of our time.

never realized it's the same guy... I ran into his work in the POTN landscape forum... Yeah, he does a lot of PP and he's actually where I learned how to sharpen my web images from. He's been inspiring me do get better images actually... Reading his website he shoots RAWs and uses ND grads (as you mentioned). I'm a quick and dirty type shooter, but the more I look at his work, the more I want to stive for technical perfection (as well as the amazing compositions he has). I love his stuff.

Ben

Ok, here's a second attempt with the full version. I attempted to convert it to a sunset-lit, moody-sky run of the mill lighthouse pic. I even got rid of the annoying fisherkid and the fat lady on teh rocks ( I despise people in my landscapes).

[img width=533 height=800]http://tardypizza.com/Images/NSOP/Port_26-1.jpg[/img]

There is no fixing the out of focus rocks in the foreground.

I can keep going if you want...

please keep going, I really like it. Did you do any tone mapping to the image?

to tone map you need a 16 bit image so I doubt it (it's possible to set a 8bit to 16 and tone map it, but you get a ton of noise that way).

not always true, I used photomatix on a few of my images with no ill effect. as long as the amount is kept under 40 percent it can work

Originally Posted by Calcvictim

please keep going, I really like it. Did you do any tone mapping to the image?

no tone-mapping, just built in features for CS2

On second look, I'm not really digging the halo around the lighthouse and the green trees in the background. I'm no sure which of my PP steps caused this so it might take some time to fix.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

On second look, I'm not really digging the halo around the lighthouse and the green trees in the background. I'm no sure which of my PP steps caused this so it might take some time to fix.

Whatever it is, it also shows up in many of Marc Adamus' shots. One of the few critiques I would have for his images, but one that seems to consistently be present... almost seems intentional, but I highly doubt it. Also, leads me to believe quite a bit of processing goes into his finished work.

- Scott

Originally Posted by Stime187

Whatever it is, it also shows up in many of Marc Adamus' shots. One of the few critiques I would have for his images, but one that seems to consistently be present... almost seems intentional, but I highly doubt it. Also, leads me to believe quite a bit of processing goes into his finished work.

- Scott

In that case, I'm flattered!

Originally Posted by Stime187

Originally Posted by tardypizza

On second look, I'm not really digging the halo around the lighthouse and the green trees in the background. I'm no sure which of my PP steps caused this so it might take some time to fix.

Whatever it is, it also shows up in many of Marc Adamus' shots. One of the few critiques I would have for his images, but one that seems to consistently be present... almost seems intentional, but I highly doubt it. Also, leads me to believe quite a bit of processing goes into his finished work.

- Scott

I haven't looked closely at his work in a while so I don't recall seeing that, but halos around objects is one of my big bugaboos in photography. Unfortunately it's a problem that's becoming more and more common.

Originally Posted by emorphien

I haven't looked closely at his work in a while so I don't recall seeing that, but halos around objects is one of my big bugaboos in photography. Unfortunately it's a problem that's becoming more and more common.

yeah, because people are relying on tone mapping and shadows/highlights a bit too much... they are the biggest cause (and really the only cause I know that routinely does it besides sharpening, but that's a different halo) that I know.

my try at the lighthouse:
[img width=547 height=800]http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=909&g2_serialNumber=1[/img]
I went pretty light on the PP as I don't like to create what not there, just enhance it. Although I did do a colored gradient to change the sky up a bit. I've never done one so it was fun to try something new on some one elses picture...

Ben

One more attempt at it.
I took the jpeg, conveted it to 16 bits, made 3 versions (middle, light, dark) and stacked in Photomatix. Afterwards did a little messaging with tone mapping and this is what I got. Let me know what you think.
[img width=533 height=800]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v673/Calcvictim/Portland%20Maine/hdrpp.jpg[/img]

toss them in your own thread "PP these for me" or something like that.
new threads > long threads IMHO, easier to find what you're looking for.