+++ Get Featured in an upcoming video +++ I’m working on a new video showing how different Pro Landscape Photographers are editing the same Raw image. I also want to include YOU, the viewers this time around! If you want to participate you can find the raw photo here: drive.google.com/drive/folder... Simply edit this image in your style and then post the finished Version in this newly created Subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/PhotoEditing... (Reddit allows us to view the images in higher resolution and is better for future discussions) Video will be online in October. Thanks for participating! 🙂
Another superb tutorial Christian - I Iove how you have used LR to mimic the Golden Hour in this image. Personally I feel the sky has been 'overcooked' in this case by the processing and does not look natural but that's a minor quibble. I've only recently discovered your channel and have already learned so much about the creative use of masks and split-toning. I'm going to keep working through all of your videos. Keep up the great work!
Christian, You have made a very helpful and inspiring presentation about Aspect ratio on Lightroom and Nik collection on Photoshop.These two selections brought out a warmer and a more glowing effect, which is really creative. The mountains and lake are getting more beautiful and splendid. I am grateful for your brilliant camera capture after a long hiking trip! I learned more from you. Thank you very much!
Fantastic video, Christian. You do such an awesome job of showing tools to transform an image and your explanations are done in such a helpful way. Question: When you were adding sharpening, the inset picture appeared to show a need of the use of the Denoise tool. Is there a reason why you would don't have taken that step? Thanks for such a great video tutorial!
Thank you so much for the kind comment! I personally dont think the nosie levels in this image, even after the editing where high enought to make use of denoising, but again, thats a personal thing (a very, very rarely use denoise, but when I do its mostly for really dark underexposed raw files which I then can easily recover with ai denoise!)
I've only used the transformation panel for straightening previously so this tutorial is very helpful. Also the video is really well presented with very clear information 👏. I've just subscribed
Appreciate this video a great deal. I have always taken my image into PS to enlarge the back ground on images like this......this method in LrC is much easier and definitely worth a try before going into PS. Thank you kindly from across the bay over here in Minnesota...
awesome how you're working with those masks. I'm pretty well known with the LR masks, but this is something different. Thnx very much for this tutorial 👍👍
You are definitely a great photographer and photo editor, Christian. I think you should make challenge video where you edit less great photo from your subscribers. So that that people can have different perspectives when editing not so great photo
I did videos like this a few times some years back, I also want to do videos like that again, just cant find free time to set something up as I'm basically working 2 jobs :( I Promise there will be something like that coming in the future again
Thank you for commenting! I could have burned a few areas in the foreground for some more contrast, thats true, the shadows there are still a little too bright
A great edit and video, thanks so much. If you don't mind a comment, I think your "lighting edit" is fantastic, the lake looks exactly the colour of a glacial run off lake, amazing, but the colour in the sky is a bit too vivid and intense for my taste. Thanks for the video Christian, many of them are really insightful.
Thank you very much for commenting! I see what you mean, I really like the intense color of the sky, but I can also understand that this might bee too much for others. You might want to use another color range mask on top of the sky and dial back the saturation a bit to get a more pleasing result
Great discussion. Thank you. Question: sometimes when I use content aware for the ‘white triangles”, I can still see the line where the hypotenuse of the triangle meets the image.Thoughts?
Thanks for commenting! Did you select those gaps by CTRL + Clicking on the layer thumbnail? Because Photoshop then misses one pixel along the edge of the image which results in those ugly lines :( You can go to the select menu and modify the selection expanding it by one pixel and the problem should be fixed!
Would another focal length have been better suited to this image to limit the manipulation necessary in post? I know 16mm has its perks for capturing the vastness, but I find myself not taking it out of the bag as often for this reason. Genuinely curious.
Great question! You probably could shoot this scene with 24 mm which would net you more natural, bigger mountains as you have to tilt the camera a little more downwards, or you could shoot a vertical panorama (with like 24-30mm)but then you would end up with distortion due to the panorama which needs some fixing at least. I personally prefer 16mm for this scene since it gives me more room for the composition to play around with (especially with the foreground)!
It's a nice example. But I'm curious why you used such high ISO level which is 3200 while normal lighting conditions? Aperture 8-11 could be used instead of 14. Just curious
Probably because he wanted to.achieve a relatively sharp image front to back without the need to focus stack. This front rock is too close and with using a smaller fstop he'd need to compromise by loosing sharpness either on the rock or on the mountains in the back
Thanks for the comment! For bright scenes like this ISO 3200 isnt an issue for modern full frame cameras, I could have gone up to 12800 and still fix it with a bit of ai denoise :-) I set the ISO that high to be able to use shorter shutter speeds (important to me since I shoot a lot of HDR and any moving part can ruin the image much more then a little bit of noise does) plus with a smaller aperture I can make sury everything from front to back is nice and sharp (even the rock in the bottom part) as XXX-vy6xv has pointed out :-)
I suggest you learn what is depth of field which will allow you to take pictures with an ISO setting of 100 and an aperture of f4 like here and get everything sharp, yes, everything !
While I agree hyperfocal distance is a thing, the priority to shoot landscape photos with ISO 100 isn't really a thing anymore (I'm not sure if it ever was) because with modern cameras and modern noise reduction techniques you can easily go beyond ISO 6400 and dont worry about noise with bright scenes like this. The benefit is you can use much shorter shutter speeds (huge plus for HDR on windy days for example) and smaller aperutres. The best aperture is highly dependend on the lens you're using. In general with those wide angle lenses, and aperture of aroun F/11-16 gets you the best results in terms of sharpnes. The wider you open up the aperture, the more likely you will run into issues (especially towards the edges and corners)!
@@ThePhlogPhotography "Diffraction is a loss of sharpness or resolution caused by photographing with small f/stops. The same softening effect happens when photographing through diffusion cloth or window screens." "with the lens set at f/22, which is a small aperture that should only be used when large depth of field is required and sharpness can be sacrificed." "Perhaps I can stop down to f/11 on the 12-megapixel Nikon D700 before noticing any diffraction, while the 36-megapixel D800/D810 would show visible diffraction at any aperture smaller than f/5.6". You are definitively not a photographer as we can see on your photos but in some cases, you are a good repair man. The day you start learning on how to make an interesting picture, you will not need any repairing, just a few adjustments. May I kindly send you to a reknown photographer called rockwell, he explains things just as good as you do for repairing. Warm regards,
@@ThePhlogPhotography Perhaps I can stop down to f/11 on the 12-megapixel Nikon D700 before noticing any diffraction, while the 36-megapixel D800/D810 would show visible diffraction at any aperture smaller than f/5.6. f/ line pairs per mm 1.4 1,100 2 800 2.8 565 4 400 5.6 283 8 200 11 141 16 100 Diffraction is a loss of sharpness or resolution caused by photographing with small f/stops. The same softening effect happens when photographing through diffusion cloth or window screens.
Stretching mountains is pretty frowned upon in the landscape photography community. Manipulating light and color in post is one thing because you can argue that a camera can't accurately depict what the human eye sees. Stretching mountains, blending focal lengths, replacing skies, or any other significant change to the content of the image isn't really photography at that point, in my opinion. Love your work otherwise, thanks.
it's great but it's over edited, it's like fashion portrait editing for landscape. i believe we can enhance what is already there but, after using transform and hundreds of masks, i don't feel like you took this picture for real. if you have to edit your pictures that much , you should try and taking better pictures in the first place. i like a real beautiful captured moment in time not a fabricated one from an ordinary photo. the sky is too dark and the turquoise color makes it a bit weird, like if you were using a cheap cpl filter. i do feel the picture would have been better if edited without the transform part
If you feel that way, maybe this channel isn't for you. I like editing and there are no rules against it. Ansel Adams also heavily edited his photos, do you think he should have taken better photos in the first place too? its art, its subjectiv, there is no good or bad.
@@ThePhlogPhotography yes, there is good and bad art, only bad artist say that as an excuse for being bad. if you want to make art do fashion photography, landscape is finding the right composition and taking the great picture. using light and shadow like ansel adams did. but replacing the sky or changing the landscape or even making up new landscapes is not ok don't mention Ansel Adams you are nowhere close to is level and he only dodge and burn on his edits so you don't have the right to use him as an example since it's not the same at all. do CGI instead save yourself the trouble of taking pictures you don't need them
+++ Get Featured in an upcoming video +++
I’m working on a new video showing how different Pro Landscape Photographers are editing the same Raw image. I also want to include YOU, the viewers this time around!
If you want to participate you can find the raw photo here:
drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Simply edit this image in your style and then post the finished Version in this newly created Subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/PhotoEditing...
(Reddit allows us to view the images in higher resolution and is better for future discussions)
Video will be online in October. Thanks for participating! 🙂
Thanks
Thank you so much for the support!
Another superb tutorial Christian - I Iove how you have used LR to mimic the Golden Hour in this image. Personally I feel the sky has been 'overcooked' in this case by the processing and does not look natural but that's a minor quibble. I've only recently discovered your channel and have already learned so much about the creative use of masks and split-toning. I'm going to keep working through all of your videos. Keep up the great work!
Thank you very much, great to hear that you were able to learn a few things watching my videos! :-)
Christian, You have made a very helpful and inspiring presentation about Aspect ratio on Lightroom and Nik collection on Photoshop.These two selections brought out a warmer and a more glowing effect, which is really creative. The mountains and lake are getting more beautiful and splendid.
I am grateful for your brilliant camera capture after a long hiking trip!
I learned more from you. Thank you very much!
Thank you so much for the kind comment, IM really happy you were able to learn something from this video!
Fantastic video, Christian. You do such an awesome job of showing tools to transform an image and your explanations are done in such a helpful way.
Question: When you were adding sharpening, the inset picture appeared to show a need of the use of the Denoise tool. Is there a reason why you would don't have taken that step?
Thanks for such a great video tutorial!
Thank you so much for the kind comment! I personally dont think the nosie levels in this image, even after the editing where high enought to make use of denoising, but again, thats a personal thing (a very, very rarely use denoise, but when I do its mostly for really dark underexposed raw files which I then can easily recover with ai denoise!)
Another amazing tutorial. I learn something new every time. Thanks.
Thank you so much, thats great to hear!
Absolutely fantastic tutorial, Christian 👍. Very informative, also encouraging and motivational. I learn a lot from your tutorials. 👍
Thanks a lot!
I've only used the transformation panel for straightening previously so this tutorial is very helpful. Also the video is really well presented with very clear information 👏. I've just subscribed
Thank you so much, happy to hear you liked the video!
Well done Christian. As usual your tutorials are most interesting and helpful.
Thank you so much!
I loved this edit and what you did with the Transform tool. I would also like to see more of what you do with the NIK Collection.
Thank you very much! I will surely include some more nik collection work in upcoming videos :-)
Appreciate this video a great deal. I have always taken my image into PS to enlarge the back ground on images like this......this method in LrC is much easier and definitely worth a try before going into PS. Thank you kindly from across the bay over here in Minnesota...
I hope you will get some good results in LR with this method! Thank you so much for commenting!
Once again, a superb tutorial.
Thanks a lot!
Great stuff as usual Christian 👍
Thanks a lot!
awesome how you're working with those masks. I'm pretty well known with the LR masks, but this is something different. Thnx very much for this tutorial 👍👍
Thank you so much!
You are definitely a great photographer and photo editor, Christian.
I think you should make challenge video where you edit less great photo from your subscribers. So that that people can have different perspectives when editing not so great photo
I did videos like this a few times some years back, I also want to do videos like that again, just cant find free time to set something up as I'm basically working 2 jobs :( I Promise there will be something like that coming in the future again
great tutorial , Thank you for your excellent work !
Very cool, Christian! It would be great to use also a little bit burning in this image (foreground/midground)😊
Thank you for commenting! I could have burned a few areas in the foreground for some more contrast, thats true, the shadows there are still a little too bright
Good inspiration again. Thank you.
A great edit and video, thanks so much. If you don't mind a comment, I think your "lighting edit" is fantastic, the lake looks exactly the colour of a glacial run off lake, amazing, but the colour in the sky is a bit too vivid and intense for my taste. Thanks for the video Christian, many of them are really insightful.
Thank you very much for commenting! I see what you mean, I really like the intense color of the sky, but I can also understand that this might bee too much for others. You might want to use another color range mask on top of the sky and dial back the saturation a bit to get a more pleasing result
thank you for everything Mr
Great discussion. Thank you. Question: sometimes when I use content aware for the ‘white triangles”, I can still see the line where the hypotenuse of the triangle meets the image.Thoughts?
Thanks for commenting! Did you select those gaps by CTRL + Clicking on the layer thumbnail? Because Photoshop then misses one pixel along the edge of the image which results in those ugly lines :( You can go to the select menu and modify the selection expanding it by one pixel and the problem should be fixed!
Would another focal length have been better suited to this image to limit the manipulation necessary in post? I know 16mm has its perks for capturing the vastness, but I find myself not taking it out of the bag as often for this reason. Genuinely curious.
Great question! You probably could shoot this scene with 24 mm which would net you more natural, bigger mountains as you have to tilt the camera a little more downwards, or you could shoot a vertical panorama (with like 24-30mm)but then you would end up with distortion due to the panorama which needs some fixing at least.
I personally prefer 16mm for this scene since it gives me more room for the composition to play around with (especially with the foreground)!
Thank you very much.
You deserve all thanks.
Did you use a polarizer filter (uneven blue in the sky)?
With a larger aperture this has little or no effect, the blurred area being only a small fraction of the overall image.
It's a nice example. But I'm curious why you used such high ISO level which is 3200 while normal lighting conditions? Aperture 8-11 could be used instead of 14. Just curious
Probably because he wanted to.achieve a relatively sharp image front to back without the need to focus stack. This front rock is too close and with using a smaller fstop he'd need to compromise by loosing sharpness either on the rock or on the mountains in the back
Thanks for the comment! For bright scenes like this ISO 3200 isnt an issue for modern full frame cameras, I could have gone up to 12800 and still fix it with a bit of ai denoise :-)
I set the ISO that high to be able to use shorter shutter speeds (important to me since I shoot a lot of HDR and any moving part can ruin the image much more then a little bit of noise does) plus with a smaller aperture I can make sury everything from front to back is nice and sharp (even the rock in the bottom part) as XXX-vy6xv has pointed out :-)
Did you consider using lightroom’s denonise?
The finished image has the blue of the sky darker than its reflection in the lake.
🙏🙏🙏🙏
hallo, where is this see/ location?
@galanonim8137 pointed it out correctly: this is the Silvretta Stausee in Austria
Better: hyperfocal distance , sorry.
I wonder why you don’t use the CALIBRATION panel
10:35
New techniques....as far I remember.. no noise reduction applied ¿ did I miss ?
No noise reduction requierd for this image! :-)
I suggest you learn what is depth of field which will allow you to take pictures with an ISO setting of 100 and an aperture of f4 like here and get everything sharp, yes, everything !
While I agree hyperfocal distance is a thing, the priority to shoot landscape photos with ISO 100 isn't really a thing anymore (I'm not sure if it ever was) because with modern cameras and modern noise reduction techniques you can easily go beyond ISO 6400 and dont worry about noise with bright scenes like this. The benefit is you can use much shorter shutter speeds (huge plus for HDR on windy days for example) and smaller aperutres. The best aperture is highly dependend on the lens you're using. In general with those wide angle lenses, and aperture of aroun F/11-16 gets you the best results in terms of sharpnes. The wider you open up the aperture, the more likely you will run into issues (especially towards the edges and corners)!
@@ThePhlogPhotography
"Diffraction is a loss of sharpness or resolution caused by photographing with small f/stops. The same softening effect happens when photographing through diffusion cloth or window screens."
"with the lens set at f/22, which is a small aperture that should only be used when large depth of field is required and sharpness can be sacrificed."
"Perhaps I can stop down to f/11 on the 12-megapixel Nikon D700 before noticing any diffraction, while the 36-megapixel D800/D810 would show visible diffraction at any aperture smaller than f/5.6".
You are definitively not a photographer as we can see on your photos but in some cases, you are a good repair man.
The day you start learning on how to make an interesting picture, you will not need any repairing, just a few adjustments.
May I kindly send you to a reknown photographer called rockwell, he explains things just as good as you do for repairing.
Warm regards,
@@ThePhlogPhotography Perhaps I can stop down to f/11 on the 12-megapixel Nikon D700 before noticing any diffraction, while the 36-megapixel D800/D810 would show visible diffraction at any aperture smaller than f/5.6.
f/
line pairs per mm
1.4
1,100
2
800
2.8
565
4
400
5.6
283
8
200
11
141
16
100
Diffraction is a loss of sharpness or resolution caused by photographing with small f/stops. The same softening effect happens when photographing through diffusion cloth or window screens.
Interesting and useful tutorial, but the final photo is absolutely overcooked and over-the-top vulgar...
Stretching mountains is pretty frowned upon in the landscape photography community. Manipulating light and color in post is one thing because you can argue that a camera can't accurately depict what the human eye sees. Stretching mountains, blending focal lengths, replacing skies, or any other significant change to the content of the image isn't really photography at that point, in my opinion.
Love your work otherwise, thanks.
Interesting use of tools However my opinion image is way over done looks fake
Now, you lost all feeling of depth. In fact any feeling in the image is destroyed. So impact is lost,
it's great but it's over edited, it's like fashion portrait editing for landscape.
i believe we can enhance what is already there but, after using transform and hundreds of masks, i don't feel like you took this picture for real.
if you have to edit your pictures that much , you should try and taking better pictures in the first place.
i like a real beautiful captured moment in time not a fabricated one from an ordinary photo.
the sky is too dark and the turquoise color makes it a bit weird, like if you were using a cheap cpl filter.
i do feel the picture would have been better if edited without the transform part
If you feel that way, maybe this channel isn't for you. I like editing and there are no rules against it. Ansel Adams also heavily edited his photos, do you think he should have taken better photos in the first place too? its art, its subjectiv, there is no good or bad.
@@ThePhlogPhotography yes, there is good and bad art, only bad artist say that as an excuse for being bad.
if you want to make art do fashion photography, landscape is finding the right composition and taking the great picture.
using light and shadow like ansel adams did. but replacing the sky or changing the landscape or even making up new landscapes is not ok
don't mention Ansel Adams you are nowhere close to is level and he only dodge and burn on his edits so you don't have the right to use him as an example since it's not the same at all.
do CGI instead save yourself the trouble of taking pictures you don't need them
The final result looks like fake, specially the sky... Not good.