DT 3.0.0rc0 20190424_FUJ2114_01.raf.xmp (12.4 KB)
1 Like
Very challenging indeed!
I decided to let it be more dreamy and less razor-sharp.
I warmed the white balance, raised the new Shadow Rolloff Point, reduced the film area, raised Drama to 100, nudged the black clipping point, reduced the white clipping point slightly, reduced the shadow brightness a bit, and increased vibrance and reduced saturation in opposition to emphasize the brighter colors more and neutralize the neutral colors.
3 Likes
I could not reproduce this so far, still trying…
Good edit!
No haze this time. Still abstract to keep it positano interesting.
1 RT demosaicing (1-pass+fast), filter (dead, hot pixel), capture sharpening (corner boost), float (32-bit).
2 gmic filter (negatives, hot pixel), resize, smooth (guided).
3 pnmclahe enhance local contrast.
4 gmic copy L* from step 3, brightness-contrast curves, chroma curve (highlights blend), sharpen (fft).
5 GIMP + G'MIC decompose (wavelet), inpaint (transport-diffusion), heal each scale.
Zoom and enjoy!
6 Likes
Nice shot! I found it fun to work with.
darktable 2.6.2: 20190424_FUJ2114.raf.xmp (13.3 KB)
I don’t count myself as experienced in or knowledgeable about those topics or photography or post-processing in general, but as you seem to be after feedback I do have a couple of observations on your result.
- The ridge which is in the centre of the frame is darker than the rest of the mountain face which is nearer. This creates an unnatural look, being in opposition to natural haze, especially when considering how bright the buildings this side of the mountain (behind the setting sun) are.
Dark ridge tops are often created as a result of gray grads used on skies, and I think they should be avoided if at all possible. I used a graduated density for the sky and managed to avoid darkening the mountain with a parametric mask, only allowing the darkening to apply to tones above a certain lightness.
- The surface of the water is brighter than the sky, which is the wrong way round and so also looks unnatural.
Regarding the shot itself, one thing I noticed is that there was plenty of scope to shoot at a lower ISO with a longer exposure time to avoid noise. Instead of 1/1000th of a second at 1600 ISO, 1/250th of a second at 400 ISO should help quite a bit.
I hope this helps, but it’s all secondary to you having captured a great scene!
I’ve only used the retouch module in a very basic way and haven’t learnt about its ‘scales’ and ‘algorithms’, but here’s how it can be used to remove spots.
Scroll wheel adjusts shape size.
Shift+scroll wheel adjusts feathering size.20190424_FUJ2114.raf.xmp (13.3 KB)
2 Likes
Gave it a whack in Darktable 3.0 RC2 and RawTherapee. I’m still learning my way around RawTherapee so don’t let me edit reflect the quality of that software. I’m barely beyond the “what’s this button do” stage.
The luminance Y setting on preserve chrominance option seemed to give the best result on the hihglights to my eye. I used the retouch module to get rid of the dust specs and that blob.
20190424_FUJ2114.raf.xmp (35.9 KB)
RawTherapee edit just for the heck of it and because I’m trying to learn it. Exported to GIMP for use of the healing tool on the spots as RawTherapee doesn’t have local editing yet.
20190424_FUJ2114.raf.pp3 (11.5 KB)
I’ve been having better luck out of RT on the highlight reconstruction side as of late but I think I prefer DT’s color reproduction. Could just be down to familiarity with the tool! Couldn’t quite squeeze the same “pop” out of the buildings in RT yet.
Edit:
Slightly better RT edit after playing some more!
20190424_FUJ2114-2.jpg.out.pp3 (11.5 KB)
1 Like
Hey David thanks a lot for the v. useful comments! Looking back at my edit – you’re right, I guess I had overused the tone equalizer and didnt’ pay attention to what the real thing was. Since I’m always after a realistic look, I think that tone equalizer would be rather dangerous in my hands unless I take mental note of how the tonalities in the real world are; in most of my other edits in fact I use a simpler tone curve or rgb curve where I work on the scene in its entirety. I used to do dodge and burn in lightroom mostly for street photography where I think it’s less important to maintain a realistic look.
About the choice of shooting parameters, well that was entirely my mistake and yes, I should’ve decreased the ISO (I was walking back up the mountain with the camera on, it was getting dark very quickly so I simply left the camera on 1600 just in case and then looking back at the scene I took some photos of the beautiful landscape without thinking too much about ISO…).
1 Like
Had some fun with the new Darktable 3. Filmic rgb, tone contrast, local contrast, and a few more things.
20190424_FUJ2114.raf.xmp (9.0 KB)
1 Like
Is Photoflow 0.2.8 the latest version?
That is the latest “official” release, but I strongly advise you to use instead the nightly builds that you can find here. I am preparing a new release for the beginning of next year, but meanwhile the nightly builds are definitely better, more stable and have much more features than v0.2.8.
3 Likes
thanks
1 Like
Out of curiosity. Did you decide to use a higher ISO and an exposure of 1/1000 or was that an accident?
Here my take on it. I slowly get more and more into the filmic module.
20190424_FUJ2114_01.raf.xmp (6.6 KB)
Sorry Andreas, I did see your question but then I never replied! The reason for the high ISO and high exposure time is simply because I was walking back up the mountain and I was almost running to get to the car before sunset. So I had my Fuji already in “evening” mode (=high ISO), then I realized that I had this panorama behind me and so I took some photographs without even looking at the settings. In short, no real reason behind it, other than sloppiness!