Sunday afternoon a walk in the mountains revealed this beautiful view. Sun was low and glowing and I took this (and some other) shots. I carefully focused on the trees at the border in the middle ground at f8 with quite a fast shutter speed (shot handheld). At home I found this very sharp and the shadows in the snow suggested a BW process.
So I took the ilford filmsimulation profile (thanks Pat!) in rawtherapee. The contrast was slightly enhanced by increasing the black threshold.
I enclose the raw - so if you to give it a try …
Here’s mine done in RT with the B&W tool (and channel mixer within that). Couldn’t resist, having got my new self-built PC going today! (But done on a ropey old monitor…)
@Jonas_Wagner, very good, especially like the trees.
I went to have a quick look via your link, respect! (though when I clicked on “Post” I got a Not Found)
Thanks guys for your kind words and efforts! I have put the images side by side in gwenview and did a 1:1 compare.
I clearly see in the BW that a little bit more contrast and lightening of the trees on the left side improves significantly the image - and you managed this without getting the grey tones reduced! As I use RT, @Andrew - would you mind to share your pp3 for the BW? But I like all of the results (and slight sharpening also makes the image crisper).
For the color images: @chroma_gost: I am always struggling with white balance. Usually I am setting this to cloudy in RT (or use cloudy-camera preset stored in the raw, then “camera” in raw). But shots taken during the “golden hours” thus get yellowish. So a warmer color setting (sunny) reduces the yellow and “auto” (especially with “real” snow in the picture) yields beautiful vivid colors - but the magic of the sunset is gone. Maybe it depends mainly on my 3rd class monitor (and I should stick to BW .). Or I have to make real prints and to rate those.
…but that would be an other story.
Thanks again for your kind feedback (encouraging to post again a raw I rate good enough).
Filmulator is very simplified compared to other editors, so basically the process for nearly any photo, including this one, is the same:
Recover highlights, adjust exposure compensation to fill the pre-film histogram, maybe raise drama a bit, tweak the white clipping point and shadow brightness, and you’re done.
In addition to that, I adjusted the white balance to taste.
This all took maybe a minute.
I’ll post the specific settings i ended up with when I get home tonight.
@seume, here it is. DSC00657-rawconvert-s2.jpg.out.pp3 (9.5 KB)
Maybe someone can explain something about this photo/PP3 combo. In the B&W tool, the image is reasonably sensitive to moving the gamma sliders for Red and Green. But it pretty much ignores changes to the Blue one. Why is this? I was gonna quote the RT version no… About - Version says Gtkmm: V2.24.5 but that doesn’t sound like the right thing. @Dariusz_Duma, how do you find this under Ubuntu please, where you don’t download a single file like with Windows. Sorry to wander off topic a bit…
Turned on CA correction
Highlight recovery 3 (basic color reconstruction)
Temperature 6057.6 (as shot WB)
Tint 0.9083 (as shot was 0.9967, this makes the image less green)
Exposure compensation +1 (to counteract the highlight recovery darkening everything)
Highlight Rolloff Point 1 (because we fully reconstructed the highlights without a problem)
Film area: default
Drama: 64 (moderate-strength tone mapping)
No overdrive
Black clipping point 0 (default)
White clipping point 0.6342 (to brighten up the image after the tone mapping attenuates the bright regions)
Shadow brightness: 147.51 (to add contrast)
Highlight brightness: 750 (default)
Vibrance & Saturation: 0 (default)
Hi @seume, here’s the pp3 if you are still interested. You need the “Fuji Provia 400F” film simulation installed – probably my favourite. And you should adjust the path in the pp3 to point to your film simulation directory.
On this note, if any RawTherapee developer is reading this: would you consider a patch to allow the use of relative file names for film simulation files (and possibly camera profiles as well)?
I wholeheartedly second this. I frequently use film emulation and custom camera profile, but this makes sharing of the pp3 rather problematic due to hard-coded path in the profile.
As I am practicing my over the top processing skills (as in over the top processing, not over the top skills) I gave it a go but in the end didn’t really go over the top. Developed in RT and then some local adjustments in Gimp. Brought the sky down raised contrast on the fence, etc…
Here’s a quick patch to allow the use of relative filenames for film simulation profiles (disclaimer: tested only on Linux). If there’s a general interest, I can try submitting a proper one through github. relative-clut.patch (3.1 KB)
I’ve not yet tried it, but it looks good. Please go ahead and file an issue on GitHub with this patch. The only thing I’d like you to change, is to keep rtengine::CLUTStore::getClut()'s signature as it was and make a const Glib::ustring full_filename copy.
Please go ahead and file an issue on GitHub with this patch. The only thing I’d like you to change, is to keep