Date   

Re: Land of Pagodas: Results

Gerald Bakker
 

Mine is 802, probably the lightest of all. It never occurred to me that the image should keep its dark look. Even though we knew this was a shot taken at dawn, my reasoning was that the human eye always adapts to any lighting situation, so a correction can follow that. Looking through all entries, I think my approach is defendable, although probably many of you will disagree. At least, I didn't find this a very difficult exercise.

I must say, I don't like the par. It has a good sky, but everything else is way too colorful. Somehow all these saturated colors don't look right for a dawn scene.
--
Gerald Bakker
https://geraldbakker.nl


Re: Land of Pagodas: Results

john c.
 

Without a doubt the the most difficult yet Kent, and mostly because there are so many possibilities that aren't pleasing due to the time of day. I think it's just before sunrise and we're pushing it to make it look brighter than it was and should be. I hated my version 810 when I sent it to Dan and told him so and suggested that I wanted to start over, so today I went back to the drawing board using the raw file this time and in less than five minutes I had a result that was vastly superior to the one I had submitted. Sometimes we just need a fresh look to see where we want to go. Let me add that I'm not a huge fan of the par version. I like lots of things about it, particularly the sky and the detail in the mountain range through the mist, but I think it's too bright and colorful given the dawn light, the vegetation is too yellow and the pagodas too colorfully magenta/red as well. I subtracted a lot of yellow/orange saturation from it before I found it pleasing, then I darkened it a lot before I loved it. Morning light can play tricks on the eye, particularly through mist and smog, but I think this came out overstated while trying to look as if it was taken in the middle of the morning rather than sunrise.


Case Study: Shasta

Dan Margulis
 

Three quick comments before getting into this week's study.
 
First, I request that more attention be paid to the technical requirements. In the Pagodas exercise for each of the following categories there were at least two offenders:
*file submitted in Adobe RGB rather than sRGB.
*file submitted at the wrong size, though with sufficient resolution.
*file had aspect changed, presumably due to the application of a lens profile.
The first two categories I can correct, although I shouldn't have to; I can post an image in the third category but can't use it in a par because it doesn't quite line up with the others.
 
Second, I hope that everyone in the Northern Hemisphere is as happy to see the advent of spring as I am. It's been a rough winter.
 
Third, speaking of which, yesterday was our first warm day here in New Jersey and I was able to get out and do some walking, along with half of the rest of the population, which made social distancing difficult. I was looking forward to a long hike today with fewer crowds on a weekday.
 
Unfortunately, we've all been advised to stay indoors. Apparently the pollution here today is significantly worse than Hong Kong, though not for the moment as high as Beijing or Mumbai. Still, such levels are very unusual here. Last week we had a series of warnings that conditions were good for rapidly spreading wildfires, and I have to suppose that such fires may be the cause of the poor air quality. Which brings us squarely to our next challenge.
 
U.S. companies do not offer as much vacation time as their European counterparts, so time is at a premium for Americans in transatlantic visits. There is such a thing as making the best of a bad situation, but many American tourists don't do so. They have one week to spend in Italy, say. Convinced that they may never return, they decide to see everything in that one week. So, they schedule stops in Venice, Florence, and Rome, spend more time on trains than at tourist sites, and come back thinking to themselves that Italy is overrated, although they'll shoot a few selfies and tell their friends that it was the experience of a lifetime.
 
Without wishing to get into any more national stereotyping than absolutely necessary, many Germans dream of seeing the majestic sites of the American West. Granted, they have more time to spend than American tourists do, but they run into much the same problem. They are determined to see every major site, not understanding that the area they are visiting is larger than Germany, France, and Italy put together, without a decent system of public transportation, and subject to nasty weather conditions.
 
The natural result of having only a day or two at each site is that sometimes the tourist travels for a long time and gets nothing. If the weather is bad in Florence or Rome plenty of indoor activities are available. If you're at Mt. Rainier and its fogged over, you're in for a boring day. Such were the conditions the last time I was passing through. A dozen young Germans were literally crying with frustration at having come such a distance to get nothing out of it.
 
Worse, I was staying at Bryce Canyon during a nasty snowstorm. The roads being what they were, a busload of German tourists who were supposed to arrive at 10:00 a.m. for their only day at this magnificent National Park, in fact arrived at sunset and risked their lives trying to see whatever they could of the maze of trails into the Canyon.
 
Experienced travelers like me do not have such worries, for we allow enough time for bad weather. Or so I thought. I've been to Mt. Rainier several times, giving it the respect it deserves. It is most definitely an active volcano, although it has caused no trouble in the past hundred years. Being that it is several times the size of Vesuvius or Mt. Etna or Mt. St. Helens, and in the middle of a populated area, it is rightly considered not just one of the most beautiful, but one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world. A minor eruption would simply displace around a million people. A major one might make us view the current pandemic as a small annoyance.
 
I had been wanting for many years to see one of Mt. Rainier's close relatives, the majestic Mt. Shasta in northeastern California. At 14,000 ft./4,300m, it has a slightly bigger volume than Rainier, and is four volcanoes in one. It is last believed to have erupted about 250 years ago, so it isn't considered quite as dangerous as Rainier, but it is still definitely active and the U.S. Geological Survey classes it, along with Rainier and nine others in the immediate area, as a "Very High Threat" volcano.
 
Indigenous tribes, seduced by its beauty, attributed religious significance to it. They weren't disturbed by pioneers, because the place is remote. But in 2016, I finally arranged a trip to the area. As a result, I can highly recommend Lassen Volcanic National Park, as well as Lava Beds National Monument. Shasta, however, gets an incomplete.
 
En route, I picked a great day for my mandatory shot of Mt. Shasta in the distance, which is what you'll be working on. There's only one thing missing: Mt. Shasta itself. The bright, sunny weather was just as pleasant for humans as it was for the massive wildfires then burning in the area. When I finally got to the mountain I could barely see the summit, and I wasn't up for any climbing because I couldn't breathe. It was also hard to enjoy any food with the smell of smoke everywhere. So, with no prospect of the smoke clearing in the next two days, I left early.
 
Some day, after Covid, I'll get back there. Meanwhile, I post along with the raw materials a reference image of Mt. Shasta, so you can see what my camera would have liked to.
 
Dan
 
***********
 
*This is a vacation keepsake. As it's the best one I have of Mt. Shasta, you'll have to make do.
 
*In the Photos section, 2021 Case Study: Shasta, 
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=262071
I have uploaded a version opened with Camera Raw defaults, and another where the settings were much flatter. You may use either, or fetch the .cr2 as below. DO NOT WORK ON THE THUMBNAIL ATTACHED TO THIS MESSAGE, OR ON THE REFERENCE IMAGE.
 
*groups.io does not allow .cr2 format in the Photos section. If you want the .cr2, you must download a zipped file from the Files section. NOTE: the zipped file contains the reference and the two default images as well, you don't need to download them separately. Filename=2021_Shasta_case-study_source.zip
 
*The designated size of this exercise is 2000 x 3000 pixels. If you use the raw image be sure to open into the correct size. Do not crop, rotate, alter the sizing, apply any lens correction, or delete any tangible objects, because doing any of these things will make it impossible to use your version as part of a par assembly. We recommend that as soon as you acquire, you apply one of the default versions to it to make sure that all pixels line up.
 
Except as indicated in the above paragraph, you can use whatever methods you like to improve the picture.
 
*Please keep clear records of what you did for discussion. List members find these very valuable.
 
*Your final file is to be sRGB with a proper tag. If you work in a different RGB you must Edit: Convert to Profile>sRGB before submitting the file.
 
*When finished, save in JPEG form, quality level 9. E-mail it to me, dmargulis (at) aol.com, with your brief explanation of how you produced it. DO NOT POST IMAGES TO THE LIST.
 
*Remember that some e-mail clients automatically downsize image attachments. Make sure you’re sending it to me at the original size.
 
*Entries close Monday morning, 29 March, at 06:00 Eastern/1100Z/12:00 ora italiana. Europeans: remember that the clock moves forward one hour on Sunday morning.
 
*Rather than confirm every entrant I've received, I will periodically post the initials of everyone whose file I have.
 
*As soon as convenient after the deadline, I'll post all the entrants in a random order. Names will not be revealed. Once discussion begins, those who wish to identify themselves publicly may do so.
 
*If the filename of your version contains your name or initials, they will be deleted before posting. If you want to be able to identify your version by name once posted, throw in a few extra letters at the end of the filename; I won't delete them.
 
*I will leave discussion of the results to the group for the first two days after posting, and will then weigh in with my own opinion.



Re: Land of Pagodas: Results

Kent Sutorius
 

I found this to be the most difficult image to work on. Mine was 823. I was stymied by how the mountain range should look and became frustrated with the process. Working with channels I kept getting the mountain range washed out (lighter) but even the par has some of that. I thought the range should remain dark and more defined. That error in judgment led to an unsuccessful look. Even though I sharpened the picture, it looks very  muddy compared to others.

Kent Sutorius

On 3/22/2021 7:20 AM, Dan Margulis via groups.io wrote:
I’ve posted the results of the Burma exercise, the eighth in a series of 11 case studies.

Reviewing: This is a dawn photo by Vincent Versace, whose raw file was available. We have 33 entries. Most people also submitted a list of their steps, thanks very much. I haven’t read these, because I’d rather get a sense of who was successful and who wasn’t before investigating why.
The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #801 to #833. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #834. To get it, I chose five that I thought were among the best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

Normally I don't comment on results for two days after they're posted. Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.
The Folder is in the group's Photos section, 2021 Case Study: Land of Pagodas,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=261860
I also have zipped all entries and uploaded a file to our Files section,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/files/
Search for 032221_Land-of-Pagodas_entries.zip
If you are going to study these versions I strongly encourage you to download these files. Many of these entrants vary only in a minor way and it is hard to see the impact of a change without toggling back and forth between them.
I look forward to your comments.
Dan Margulis

P.S. Our ninth case study will be posted today; look for a separate post.



Re: Land of Pagodas: Results

Kenneth Harris
 

Once again, my par and Dan's par differ by one image. Dan's par is a lot better than mine, since I rejected an image with a lot going for it except for the greens all heading toward kelly, which is something I've been conditioned to dislike, largely following from this tendency in pre-portra kodak negative film, and the screaming greens put out by early espon printers. Strangely, I prefer my own to either blend, a first. The par doesn't give much of a sense of recession into space, ie, it's feeling a bit flattened out, which hurts the mood.

Ken Harris


moderated Re: Case Study: Land of Pagodas

Dan Margulis
 



On Mar 20, 2021, at 8:47 PM, Robert S Baldassano <robsbphotog@...> wrote:

Dan, I think I understand why you go into great detail in comments on some of the images, as they are great teaching moments. In my submissions your comments are generally terse as in Choir you stated blocked shadows, blown highlights, green hair for the conductor. Is this because my errors are so basic no further comments are required or that I would be better in starting over or spend more time rereading your books?

It isn’t feasible for me to comment at length on every image. Therefore, when I do offer an extended comment it’s normally because I want to show a certain technique that people may not have thought of, or how a measurement could have been taken that would have shown a problem that the member didn’t perceive but became painfully obvious when the other versions were posted.

If a person after seeing his version writes “I now see that my version is too dark” or “I wish I had made it warmer” there’s no need for me to add anything unless I disagree, because the solutions to these problems are well known. If I point a problem out because the person hasn’t done so himself, it isn’t an injunction on how to proceed.

Dan


Land of Pagodas: Results

Dan Margulis
 

I’ve posted the results of the Burma exercise, the eighth in a series of 11 case studies.

Reviewing: This is a dawn photo by Vincent Versace, whose raw file was available. We have 33 entries. Most people also submitted a list of their steps, thanks very much. I haven’t read these, because I’d rather get a sense of who was successful and who wasn’t before investigating why.

The files don’t have people’s names on them, and were random-generator numbered from #801 to #833. As with past studies, we also have a “par” version, #834. To get it, I chose five that I thought were among the best entrants, and averaged them, each one weighted 20%. This often creates a version that is superior to most if not all of its parents.

Normally I don't comment on results for two days after they're posted. Meanwhile, if you’d like to know how your own version stacked up, download the par version and compare the two directly. Do you think you got the same kind of quality? If not, I hope you’ll find further discussion useful.

The Folder is in the group's Photos section, 2021 Case Study: Land of Pagodas,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/album?id=261860

I also have zipped all entries and uploaded a file to our Files section,
https://groups.io/g/colortheory/files/
Search for 032221_Land-of-Pagodas_entries.zip
If you are going to study these versions I strongly encourage you to download these files. Many of these entrants vary only in a minor way and it is hard to see the impact of a change without toggling back and forth between them.

I look forward to your comments.

Dan Margulis

P.S. Our ninth case study will be posted today; look for a separate post.


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Dan Margulis
 



On Mar 19, 2021, at 5:08 PM, Doug Schafer <k_d@...> wrote:

Dan, I appreciate your answer and it drives me to ask more...although I "think" I know the answer.

To achieve  “individual acts of unusual cleverness” to remain, I would think if the multiple images averaging was not "stupid" (i.e. pure equal balanced %'s) but rather "smart/intelligent" where user decides how much % for each layer to place emphasis on keeping certain effects, Then sometimes an intelligent par version could be better than stupid par?

Presumably it’s *always* better, but often the gain is so small that it wouldn’t be worth the extra time in thinking/execution.


And if true, are there any special "tricks" or techniques? Or simply a matter of trial/error (intelligently done) as to layer stacking order and % applied from each layer.

It’s usually one extra layer at a time. We are rarely in a situation where we have five versions to play with. Use a second version to improve a first, and then a third if necessary.

For example you often suggest a blend of 25% or 40% etc to get the desired effects?

The exact percentage would be a matter of taste. The more important question is what blending mode to use and whether to employ a mask.

And I assume we must use a background/bottom layer of 100%?

Yes.

And, for the choir image, if you did a different intelligent par image, which images to blend and what order, and what percentages? 

I don’t want to go back and plan it out, but I’m looking at the five that currently reside in my tentative par folder for the Pagodas. I’m not going to go any further than looking because I assume that some of these will be replaced by better versions. But if I had to work with these, calling them #1-5 in the order I’m looking at them:

First, there are two that correspond more or less to my own personal preference and therefore are, in my opinion, the two best. They’re so alike that it’s unlikely one can improve the other. So I might blend them 50-50 or I might just compare and pick the one I prefer and toss the other. Either way I’m down to four versions. Let’s say I’ve decided to discard #5.

Then, I find the one that is most unlike my base version, which presumably should be the final blend. It happens to be #2. I note also that its color is very good but I’m not so satisfied with its luminosity.

#3 is not a favorite but it does have one interesting feature. I’m not sure there’s an advantage to using it.

#4 is unusual, it has a very nice sky, the foreground is about as good as the others, but all cool colors are the wrong hue.

So my presumed order of attack is:

*Discard #5
*Put #4 on top of #1 in Luminosity mode to find out whether I really need the color of the sky. If not, change mode to Luminosity and use one of the RGB composites as a layer mask so as to emphasize the excellent sky. If yes, I’ll use Normal mode for the layer but after applying the RGB to the mask I’ll apply the red in Darken mode, to further restrict the cool colors in #4.
*Put #3 on top and see if there’s any point in doing anything with it.
*Put #2 on top in Color mode, because I’m sure I want more of its color than its detail. Adjust opacity to taste.
*Put another copy of #2 on top in Luminosity mode and adjust opacity to something less.

I expect that this would produce something a bit more attractive than blending all five at 20% each, but I wouldn’t expect a difference as big as there would have been in the Choir image.

I could see wasting many hours and achieving nothing....so where to start? How to think thru an approach? Pick the best where one has a problem offset by another? Or simply pick the best 5 and trial/error blend them?

I definitely wouldn’t look for the best five, but rather the five that were most useful for blending. I’d look for (or create) ones that counteract any presumed deficiency in what we have. For example, if we like our first attempt but suspect that it might be too cold then we create a second version heavy on the orange, knowing that if it doesn’t turn out to be useful we can trash it.

Dan




moderated Re: Case Study: Land of Pagodas

Dan Margulis
 


On Mar 15, 2021, at 3:17 PM, Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis@...> wrote:

We find ourselves at dawn in the Bagan district, home to several thousand religious structures, some of which are a thousand years old. 


A reminder that entries are due in this case study in 24 hours, at 06:00 eastern daylight time Monday/1000Z/11:00 ora italiana

I confirm receipt of entries from the following individuals:

BB
GB
RoB
FC
HD
GH
KH
SJ
JP
DR*
DS
JS
KSu
BT

*indicates that a corrected version was submitted

Entries from the following were at an incorrect size/cropping and would have to be resubmitted:

None


Dan Margulis


moderated Re: Case Study: Land of Pagodas

Robert S Baldassano
 

Dan, I think I understand why you go into great detail in comments on some of the images, as they are great teaching moments. In my submissions your comments are generally terse as in Choir you stated blocked shadows, blown highlights, green hair for the conductor. Is this because my errors are so basic no further comments are required or that I would be better in starting over or spend more time rereading your books?

Robert S Baldassano

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

john c.
 

I am responsible for 715 which was used in the par version.  Since we didn't have a raw file, just ones that were either too dark or too light, I began by using them both to get an extended range original. This helped to get detail in the gold. Most of the work was done using levels, curves and H/S adjustment layers, then VH, the added blue channel in soft light mode, then I dodged and burned using masked curves layers in order to even out the lighting from front to back, but sorry Dan, I downplayed the painting on purpose, deciding to make a subtle beam of light coming from the window onto the choir. There's nothing wrong with flattering the painting though. Just a matter of where I want to viewer's eyes to wind up. I actually prefer a darker version I have, but from experience I've found that this group prefers things to be lighter and warmer than what looks good here. I guess I should know my numbers better so the display isn't a crutch. Thanks to everyone and especially Dan for all the hard work and creative problem solving.

john c


moderated Re: Case Study: Land of Pagodas

Dan Margulis
 



On Mar 15, 2021, at 3:17 PM, Dan Margulis via groups.io <dmargulis@...> wrote:

We find ourselves at dawn in the Bagan district, home to several thousand religious structures, some of which are a thousand years old. 

A reminder that entries are due in this case study in 48 hours, at 06:00 eastern daylight time Monday/1000Z/11:00 ora italiana

I confirm receipt of entries from the following individuals:

BB
GB
RoB
FC
KH
JP
DR
DS

*indicates that a corrected version was submitted

Entries from the following were at an incorrect size/cropping and would have to be resubmitted:

None


Dan Margulis


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

David Remington
 

This is a great answer Dan.


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Doug Schafer
 

Aha, and one more question regarding blending for intelligent par image:
do you ever do 'masked blending' to add emphasis of just one part of an image? (i.e. to use just the "unusual cleverness" parts)
vs.
% blending total image per layer with no mask on any layers?

Doug Schafer"


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Doug Schafer
 

Dan, I appreciate your answer and it drives me to ask more...although I "think" I know the answer.

To achieve  “individual acts of unusual cleverness” to remain, I would think if the multiple images averaging was not "stupid" (i.e. pure equal balanced %'s) but rather "smart/intelligent" where user decides how much % for each layer to place emphasis on keeping certain effects, Then sometimes an intelligent par version could be better than stupid par?

And if true, are there any special "tricks" or techniques? Or simply a matter of trial/error (intelligently done) as to layer stacking order and % applied from each layer. For example you often suggest a blend of 25% or 40% etc to get the desired effects? And I assume we must use a background/bottom layer of 100%?

And, for the choir image, if you did a different intelligent par image, which images to blend and what order, and what percentages?  I could see wasting many hours and achieving nothing....so where to start? How to think thru an approach? Pick the best where one has a problem offset by another? Or simply pick the best 5 and trial/error blend them?

Doug Schafer


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Doug Schafer
 

Dan, what magic you work with your knowledge and skills. Thanks for your generous efforts to not only host the images and reviews; but also your insight and feedback for each of us and for providing all of us with information and things to ponder. Seeing the results of many leads to new skills and knowledge.
While I've been following your books and using PPW for many years now, there are always new learnings.
From this series, I have, for myself, found these thing to pay more attention to/added emphasis:
Analysis:
- view image carefully, in context, and determine what is wrong and needs to be fixed
- what colors are wrong and affected by which adjustments; can be fixed globally? or requires local adjustments
- what channels/tools may work, or not; and how to think about a variety of ways to apply to solve different problems
Correct the image: to suit a goal/client/acceptability and/or to be outside the norm/typical/classical correction for artistic reasons; to self or client taste
Review: and adjust until it is done
Test: check the final version(s) for luminance, colors, contrast, saturation, etc; never forget to try auto tone/contrast as a final check. There is no one, right, correction. Blending 2 or more images still usually results in a better correction and is worth the effort.

I believe these above are still consistent with your multi-step process explained in your books, but I have a new emphasis on the analysis and test. By now we should know the Ps tools/techniques and how to use; but where and why is perhaps more important. And your explanations of blend-if and using channels as layer adjustments simply amazes me. You are like a pixel chess player; playing with colors and luminosity.
Thanks!

Doug Schafer


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Hector Davila
 

On 3/18/2021 12:24 PM, Dan Margulis via groups.io wrote:

 The price was that the faces became too pink. Actually the entire foreground is. As often happens, the cast can be detected in otherwise irrelevant objects, such as the Yamaha synthesizer. It measures 66L19a21b, a nice red, which is impossible.

Yes, I noticed the Yamaha synthesizer was the wrong color, and that would require me to work the entire foreground and read chapter 3 of  Modern Photoshop Color Workflow.

I simply stop working on the photo.


Hector Davila


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Dan Margulis
 



On Mar 19, 2021, at 6:56 AM, Gerald Bakker <gc.bakker@...> wrote:

Dan, can you elaborate more on what caused this par to be less satisfactory than for the other exercises? Not so much what you don't like about it (you made that clear) but why it came out like this? 

That’s an interesting question. First, I’m not saying that it’s bad, it’s likely the best one of the group, although personally I dislike it.

Having thought it over, I’d say that the underlying cause is that a par version minimizes poor technique, it averages out mistakes found in the individual parents and they aren’t as noticeable. The price is that it also averages out individual acts of unusual cleverness.

I surmise that the reason some might find this one unsatisfactory is the following: every par we’ve seen doesn’t contain obvious errors, such as excessive noise or clearly incorrect color. But until now, they’ve also had in common that there’s no immediately obvious way to improve them, in the sense that I point out and demonstrate ways to improve individual submissions in this thread.

This par, however, is different. Unlike the others, there *are* immediately obvious ways to make it better. Such as, blending #703 into it. Such as, selecting the painting and making it something more harmonious. Such as, making the altarpiece more spectacular against its background. Such as, darkening the foreground floor. 

A few entrants can be found who saw the need for one or more of each of these moves. Some, though, have other issues that prevent them being a par parent. So these desirable moves fall into the category of “individual acts of unusual cleverness” that get averaged out in the par process.

Another way of looking at it: this image offers many more opportunities than usual for sharply different interpretation. In the lion image there were differences of opinion about color but I think we were all seeking the same tonal contrast. If we had converted every submission to grayscale there wouldn’t have been a whole lot of philosophical differences.

Even in something like Sunset on the Beach, which seems like it could have very different interpretations, it isn’t really so. We all knew we had to drastically lighten the woman and we all knew that pleasing color had to be added. It was only a question of degree.

To prove the point here: divide the picture into two parts: the choir, and everything else. We probably have a consensus on what the choir should look like. And indeed, few would object to the way it is presented in the par, whether in terms of the faces, the dresses, the necklaces, or the hair. It’s in the “everything else” category that we have real disagreements, disagreements that may not be resolved amicably by averaging.

In summary, in other case studies, I could generally have made marginally better pars if I could pick and choose how I was going to blend with each of the five parents, rather than the blunderbuss approach of 20% weight for each. Here, I’m pretty sure that a *much* better par could be produced by intelligent blending.

Dan


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

David Remington
 
Edited

Dan,

This is a great review with some very useful recommendations and advice. I tried layering 703 with my 709. I agree this is an improvement! I went to 30%. The Lab trick for highlight fill and shadow color recovery is a new one by me. I'll have to experiment with that.

Edit

I also found the darken and multiply blending examples with channel masking helpful.

Thanks again for hosting this.


Re: Choir: Dan's comments

Gerald Bakker
 

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 03:01 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
As always, the par has nothing obviously wrong, which is more than can be said for most of its parents. Accepting that as a given, I have to say I am not a big fan of this par, for reasons that may become clearer in my comments on individual images. We must remember that this is a “stupid” par, where each parent is given exactly equal weight. In this exercise, more nuanced blending would have gotten a better result.
Dan, can you elaborate more on what caused this par to be less satisfactory than for the other exercises? Not so much what you don't like about it (you made that clear) but why it came out like this? 
--
Gerald Bakker
https://geraldbakker.nl

261 - 280 of 33214