Is this photo too blue?
Cynicor
elements in the landscape, but I think that I adjusted it to be too blue
overall. Other people I've spoken to say they like it as is. Just
thought I'd ask a few dozen strangers whose opinions I don't care about! :-D
Pete D
"Cynicor" <jt__rup__i_n@speak__easy.net> wrote in message
news:oZidna8hFtZ4qZTY...@speakeasy.net...
I like it just the way it is, great DOF!
David J Taylor
Assuming you mean the biggest picture on the RHS, it looks fine to me. Of
course, I don't know what the original scene was like.....
David
ASAAR
> (Not THAT "blue", the actual color blue.) It's got a lot of blue
> elements in the landscape, but I think that I adjusted it to be too blue
> overall. Other people I've spoken to say they like it as is. Just
> thought I'd ask a few dozen strangers whose opinions I don't care about! :-D
It seemed very pleasing at first, but eventually the water started
to come across as unnaturally, excessively blue. But not blue enough
for those that prefer really cool shots or perhaps a Cyanicor.
Annika1980
It's a nice pic as is, even though the water and sky are actually a
little too blue.
So the answer depends on what you are trying to present: the scene as
it actually was or your interpretation of that scene. I fiddled around
with it for about 30 seconds and got it to look a lot more natural, but
I prefer your rendition the best.
If you have Photoshop CS2 try this:
Go to Image/Adjustments/Replace Color.
With the color picker click on a dark area of the sky.
Use the following settings:
Fuzziness: 150
Hue: -2
Saturation: -10
Lightness: +20
Season to taste.
That will get you closer to how the scene actually appeared.
But you'll probably prefer your version.
Greg Guarino
On the monitor I'm looking at now, yes, a little too blue. I'm not
sure what you can learn from that though, since each monitor is
different. I'm just an amateur, but I'm always wondering which monitor
I should "trust" of the several I look at on a regular basis. I think
the answer is "none", but when putting up a web site you have to make
a decision.
Greg Guarino
DHB
<jt__rup__i_n@speak__easy.net> wrote:
To me. shot #11 does "not" seem too blue in terms of the water
or sky color (saturation) especially when compared to shot #12 which
is a darker blue but it works. That said I think shot #11 just has
too much blue in it as a percentage of the picture area, there is
little else to balance it so to me it feels a bit cold.
Shot #12 I like much better because the blue is broken up
better with other colors, hence to me it seems much warmer even though
it has a much deeper blue tone to the water. IMHO both are very good
shots & the DOF in #11 is outstanding.
There is only 1 suggestion I can offer & it's likely a poor 1
because it involves changing the picture from what it actually was to
something else in Post Production.
If you changed the color of the sky to a warmer color as if it
were taken closer to sunset, that might help offset the massive amount
(area) of blue in the water in the picture. You might also want/need
to add some of that same color tone on the white reflected off the
water. This is generally something I try to avoid doing but in this
case it might be worth trying it to see if you like the effect better.
If you like it modified, you could post both with 1 labeled "warmer
version" so people will know which is true to the actual conditions.
Aside from this suggestion I have nothing else to offer.
This is just the opinion of an "amateur" photographer, though
I have been @ it for nearly 30 years now in film & 6 years in digital.
Respectfully, DHB
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Jim
Jim
Cynicor
definitely prints out too blue for my tastes, like it's fake. I took a
bit of time with it to fix the blue like Bret suggested, and I added a
bit of a warming filter to the sky/mountain, then brightened the land in
the middle distance a bit. I'm going to have to calibrate a monitor and
work on it some more.
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824709/1/95372191
(It's sharp because I used the 50/1.8 prime instead of the 18-200 zoom.
I can notice quite a difference in sharpness in photos like this.)
Pete D
What does it look like when you print it?
Cynicor
Too blue for my tastes, like it's fake.
Pete D
In that case you answer your own post, cheers.
Cynicor
> home machine at the moment to test it, but my instinctive response is
> that it actually looks like it's too cyan, rather than too blue. The
> biggest problem is where the water meets the land, and the area that
> should look just slightly tinted looks dyed.
I realized that the reason it's doing that is because I had the
polarizer on full. It made a serious difference with Mt. Rainier -
without the polarizer, it was barely visible behind the clouds and haze.
With the polarizer, it was nice and crisp. But I think it also tossed
the water color out of whack a bit.