I absolutely adore all of the wonderful things the light is doing here (which I think you accentuated nicely with your processing). I often judge some shots by how much I’d like to walk into the frame and just soak in the view I’m being presented with. @Jonas_Wagner did it recently to me with a shot of his in the night fields, and this speaks to me similarly. Of course, living in the southern US, I have a bit of a soft spot for grand ol’ oak trees…
Wonderful shot and awesome atmosphere![quote=“Morgan_Hardwood, post:1, topic:1627”]
If you want to follow along, here’s a raw photo of the same tree composed to show the other side, the flat-field, the color target shot + DCP, and a PP3 file:
[/quote]
I recently upgraded the hosting plan for the main site to include much more disk space - so I’ll upload them there and update links appropriately - thank you x1000 for sharing your work!
I also played with the trick you mentioned in Rawtherapee and indeed I really like the effect it does to the image; I’m wondering if there is a module in darktable that can achieve similar results. Perhaps emulating the CL and CC curves using the good old saturation module with parametric masks should be close enough? I definitely should give it a try later today.
[quote=“PkmX, post:5, topic:1627”]
I’m wondering if there is a module in darktable that can achieve similar results. … … … I definitely should give it a try later today.[/quote]
Thank you everyone for the comments! They encourage me to write more. Even if it is at 3 in the morning.
@patdavid I don’t mind, that sounds like a good idea
Speaking of 3AM. I decided that if I didn’t write this post straight away, then I never would. I considered including screenshots but as it was starting to get light outside I figured I’d just let you have the PP3 and if you want to know exactly what I mean by “the first one bumped up more in the top-right” then you can just load the PP3 and see.
In most of the cases, we look at beautiful images and we just wonder how the final result was achieved: was it a matter of light conditions when the shot was taken, or skilful post-processing, or… the question remains almost always unanswered.
Here not only we are shown a beautiful image, but also given the description of the steps to achieve the final result and all the material needed to do our own experiments.
And in fact is one of the main reasons for this community, which I am failing at providing material for becuase I suck. So thank you x1000 @Morgan_Hardwood for picking up the slack and providing such a great post! (Also, you @Carmelo_DrRaw for your awesome post back in the day! ).
This is a stereogram of the old oak. Look beyond the image at an imaginary point infinitely far away to see it in 3D (parallel viewing, not cross-eye viewing).
I see a very nice stereogram with parallel viewing here. With the cross-eyed method it makes my brain also upset.
If you change the right picture for the left picture (and the left picture for the right), the stereogram will probably make our brains less upset, with cross-eyed viewing. (see answer Morgan Hardwood)
You can’t mix the two methods. Only one method works for a given stereogram arrangement. I arranged it the way I did because I find parallel viewing easier than cross-eyed.
I updated the description in my previous comment to reflect that.
@patdavid thanks! Its interesting how much more realistic and great the lighting in the photo becomes when you view it in 3D… then you pop back into 2D and the lighting looks almost bland.
You are right. In GIMP I changed right and left. Then it still made no sense with cross eyed viewing. That’s the fun with this forum. I learn every time something new, thank you.
The photos from -ytf- in the link by Pat David are with cross eyed viewing.
Swapped L&R in Gimp and it works for me since my eyes only go cross freeviewing. I like how the out of focus branches in the very foreground in the bottom part pop out of the image with a good structure.
)
(Also, you 
