can someone help me?

I want to learn how to edit landscape photographs like the ones on this landscape gallery. can someone point me in the right direction? I looked all over youtube, but couldn't find anything that looks even close to the pictures on here. I know for sure that its the editing that makes the picture. i shoot in raw. please help me!!

I will tell you with certainty that it is far more that editing that "makes the picture". Specifically, what do you think your images are missing?

STEVENMAJOR wrote:I will tell you with certainty that it is far more that editing that "makes the picture". Specifically, what do you think your images are missing?

Errrr...color, contrast, clarity ? C'mon, we all know that you can have shot the most amazing scene in the world but without some post-processing, it will not look as pretty as some images posted here.

To1234, if you're looking for those landscape pics on youtube, you likely don't find them there   But if you're looking for something to help you with the use of Photoshop and the like, well, I don't know what free videos specifically to suggest but as for books, you could take a look at Kelby's as his books can get you up and running right away without reading a lot of background stuff about the Photoshop like many other books do.

And, think editing photographs in general, not just landscape photographs, as the same knowledge and skills apply to editing and post-processing all kinds of photographs.

It's all about the light. Photoshop can't change that. A great photo will be impressive even as an out of camera jpeg. Learn the light.

And Photoshop can make a photograph that shot under good light looks even better. Everybody knows that an image straight from RAW file don't look good. Post-processing - and darkroom work in the old days - is part of the process of producing the final image. Why deny it???

BTW, you may not be doing it but Photoshop can "turn on" light even when it was off when the photograph was taken and that's a fact.

DChan wrote:And Photoshop can make a photograph that shot under good light looks even better. Everybody knows that an image straight from RAW file don't look good. Post-processing - and darkroom work in the old days - is part of the process of producing the final image. Why deny it???

BTW, you may not be doing it but Photoshop can "turn on" light even when it was off when the photograph was taken and that's a fact.

Photoshop can increase/decrease brightness but can not change the direction of the light.  The angle of the light and its nature, e.g. soft, hard can not be changed in photoshop. 

I do agree that some post processing makes a good photo better.  But it can not turn an image made in poor light into a great photo.  Besdies dodging and burning to compress the dynamic range into a range that can be seen with a given output medium, the main effect is a curves adjustment (regardless of the tool: a contrast slider, luminosity mask, etc is really just a curves adjustment).  The characteristic curve of digital output mimics that designed for vidicon TV tubes from the circa 1950s.  This characteristic curve is not like our eye response, and not like film.  Film has a "toe" in its characteristic curve, which gives images "pop."  A simple S-curve adjustment in post processing adds that toe.

Lighting, Composition and Subject are the keys to great photos, with emphasis on lighting, and not on post processing. in my opinion.

Roger

I think if you know what you are doing then you set up your camera to capture as much data as possible, that means shooting RAW and in many ways the settings you choose will not necessarily give the most pleasing results straight from the camera.

Then you need to develop an eye for light and the best composition etc.

Finally you need to have the best software for your camera brand to 'develop' your RAW file in the way your eye saw the original image. Next you need to learn all the skills necessary to preserve the data with out destructive editing to enhance the image and bring out the best in it post the developing stage.

I used to work professionally preparing images for publication and have taught quite a few classes on basic editing in Photoshop over the years. I would say based on that experience that if you learn Photoshop to a high level it will help you improve you photography too as it trains the eye to see a good photograph in nature in terms of light and composition. That will only happen if you learn to bring out the best in the image during post processing.

I would advise looking to attend a workshop with a photographer who specialises in your subject area that includes session/s with post processing. That will give you an overview of what is possible and will include resources to further your development at home.

I know for sure that its the editing that makes the picture. 

That's where you are wrong.  It doesn't matter how good you are at editing, if the photo has poor composition, a poor subject, terrible lighting (i.e. clipped blacks or blown whites), a boring color palette, bad angle etc. etc. etc, the photo will never be good.  

If you start with the basics that make a photograph good, or interesting, or visually appealing, then yes, processing will help.  

Unfortunately your request is far too general.  You don't specify what impresses you most about the landscape images seen here. Are you talking about night photos, panoramas, sunset/sunrise, long exposures, waterfalls?  There are many techniques done in camera and in post-processing depending upon the type of photograph.  Many of the images you see here can only be achieved by skillfully combining three or more images (stitched or stacked) in a program like photoshop.  But unless you perfectly executed the images in camera, no editing can overcome the inherent problems.  Additionally, photos made with a polarizing filter, for example, cannot be duplicated in post processing - particularly if water is a main feature as the filter can cut through the glare and see "into" the water.  You can't correct that in PS.  

The ability to post process an image is as important as the original capture they go hand in hand. I looked at some of your images posted on this sight and you already have the basics down what you are looking for you are not going to be able to find for free on you tube but there are several talented photographers who have produced tutorials on there processing techniques. Personally I really like Sean Bagshaw's teaching style and the depth of his tutorials http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/vid ... tutorials/.

1234 wrote:I want to learn how to edit landscape photographs like the ones on this landscape gallery. can someone point me in the right direction? I looked all over youtube, but couldn't find anything that looks even close to the pictures on here. I know for sure that its the editing that makes the picture. i shoot in raw. please help me!!

Whoa!  I spent a half hour writing this below….and then, at the end, decided to click your name.  Then I saw a couple of images you took at Haleakala.  You already are taking great images!  You are already getting out there at the first light.  You are so humble. I went to your website and was impressed with your photography :)  


http://hmatsudaphoto.com/p205200923/h1b558b2e#h2f92d01f

I love your macro and close-up gallery.  In that gallery, you show great ability to see/capture graphics that I would struggle to even see.

Here is what I wrote before clicking on your name and then your website.  After seeing those two images and your website, i had to strike though some of this  :).  Sorry.  Then again….you set us up LOL., LOL; i.e. you are already a very experienced, very talented photographer.

Here is what I first wrote:
You need to get out of bed at first light and get out into nature and watch the light (with your camera) as it plays on the scene.  Why don't you find an exciting scene in your area and take a picture of it every 5 minutes, beginning at first light?  Or start shooting that scene sometime after midday and through to a half hour after sunset.  Then you will see what mclark refers to.  No, it is not editing that makes the picture!  

I find that I am actually saddened that you looked at the exciting images photographers posted on NSN and came to the conclusion that "I know for sure that it is the editing that makes the picture."    The reason for my sadness, is that this attitude seems to go along with the increasing artificiality that man is making of this world.

Yes mclark…..it Is Light.  It is the secret.  And no, the kind of light mclark is talking about cannot be purchased in software.  

Aside from the subject matter of the image, overwhelmingly, it is "light" that is the "magic" of a superb image.  Thus far, there has not been a post processing program that can yield the light that mclark is talking about….and I hope there never will be.  

Outstanding light is the thread that is common to all superb imagery.  You capture it at shutter release, if you are in the right place at the right time…….. and cannot create it in post.

I got into photography in 1974…..for the excitement of capturing the beauty of nature, not to sit at a computer screen editing images.   As it is now, I do too much post…I hate it.  Just today, I got burned out on post and shut down the computer.    

You simply cannot compete with an image that has great light and subject matter at the outset.  The two combine for impact.  And finding such images does not happen every day.  If you expect it every day, you will be discouraged and have difficulty getting enjoyment from your photography. 

I am always humbled by the superb imagery that photographers post here on NSN. 

BTW, I think your image of Haleakala at first or last light….is too saturated….. LOL.  You do not need any more post.    

robert king
itsaboutnature.net  



 

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:[snip]
And no, the kind of light mclark is talking about cannot be purchased in software.  

[snip]

Don't be so sure about that. It may not be available for purchase, but that kind of light can be created. PIck up a Photoshop magazine such as one called Advanced Photoshop from UK and take a look at those images in it. I'd say you can see different kind of light in animated movies, too.

DChan wrote:

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:[snip]
And no, the kind of light mclark is talking about cannot be purchased in software.  

[snip]

Don't be so sure about that. It may not be available for purchase, but that kind of light can be created. PIck up a Photoshop magazine such as one called Advanced Photoshop from UK and take a look at those images in it. I'd say you can see different kind of light in animated movies, too.

Well, on second thought, I suspect you are likely right on this.  Why?  Because it is like everything else….artificiality.  

They can spend their time over a computer with photoshop….I won't.   I hate post processing.  But it is necessary…to a limited extent.   I do not even have photoshop.  Everybody else does….I do not.  Nor do I want it.  I do have Elements.  I do a maximum of 3 things to images and only 3 things:  Contrast/brightness, saturation/warmth, sharpening.

Hello everyone, thank you so much for all the replies!
I didn't mean to stir the pot or anything with editing( sorry everyone). I do have a problem explaining myself when writing, as my thoughts race through my mind and I have a hrs time writing it down properly!! Hahaaa!!!
What I meant by " I know it's the processing" is that Photoshop can help so so much with expanding the dynamic range of images, dodging and burning more than in Lightroom, and overall just making the image "pop". Thank you so much blck-shouldered kite for the awesome compliment. I am not lying or exaggerating when I say I have bought over 50 books on composition,post processing, and light. Also bought about 4 downloadable photoshop post processing tutorials by a few photographers. I just for some reason can't grasp the concept of using photoshop correctly. If anyone is interested in my newest work, I post them on instagram under hmatsudaphoto. I didn't have time to update my website because instagram is so much easier now. You will be able to see that I do get up early, travel with photography seriously in mind, and kind of understand light. But I feel photoshop would take it to the next level!!

1234 wrote:" I just for some reason can't grasp the concept of using photoshop correctly...."

What do you mean by the concept of using photoshop correctly?

Hi dchan
What I mean by "correctly" is that anyone can just slide the saturation up, put a nice s curve in the curves, and play with exposure. I really believe that the beautiful pictures posted here and on websites like 500px are adjusted using multiple complex layer mask and maybe even some luminosity masks. There is absolutely no way a JPEG can look like those on here. And if anyone is serious enough to shoot in raw for a purpose and not just because everyone says you have to, you have got to learn how to process raw files to their best. Sure, being there and looking for good compositions are paramount; but there have to more to it then just looking for a picture and waiting for the light and capturing it. That is only half the image in my opinion.

1234 wrote:What I mean by "correctly" is that anyone can just slide the saturation up, put a nice s curve in the curves, and play with exposure. I really believe that the beautiful pictures posted here and on websites like 500px are adjusted using multiple complex layer mask and maybe even some luminosity masks. There is absolutely no way a JPEG can look like those on here. And if anyone is serious enough to shoot in raw for a purpose and not just because everyone says you have to, you have got to learn how to process raw files to their best. Sure, being there and looking for good compositions are paramount; but there have to more to it then just looking for a picture and waiting for the light and capturing it. That is only half the image in my opinion.

We can argue about proportions, but I would say a great photo is 99+% light and 1% or less post processing for the more common subjects like wildlife and daytime landscapes.  Post processing is a larger factor, say 10 to 20% in nightscapes and timelapses.  HDR images also involves more post processing.

I record raw + jpeg.  I have had very limited time the last few years so sometimes I don't process the raw file and just use the jpeg.  Can you tell which ones on my web site are jpegs?    I have had jpegs place in Natures Best photo contest and printed full page.  On a jpeg one can do only a little post processing.  Almost all my people images I do as jpegs, as the jpegs are really quite good.  And as a final piece of evidence, people made great images before digital on slide film with no post processing.  With slide film it was about the light, and it is still about the light.

Finally, most post processing (except selections) in photoshop or other image editors is a curves manipulation.  If you look at the images on my web site, I use 4 basic tools: curves, feathered selections, Richardson-Lucy deconvolution (for true image sharpening), and unsharp mask (for edge contrast enhancement--it is not true sharpening).

In my opinion, people get caught up in what I perceive increasing and unnecessary complexity of photoshop.  For example, luminosity masks are amazingly complex the way it is implemented in photoshop.  But luminosity masks are just a local manipulation of curves.  With curves, one can do luminosity masks much simpler and with far more control.  Most slider tools are just a poor user interface to curves.  For example, color correction is just more curves.  Understand curves and understand image processing.  See my tutorial on night sky post processing for examples:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/nig ... rocessing/

Roger

New member here. Some shots you now when you push the button you got something special. Some you think that and they just never work.Some you snap the moment and they look mediocre at best. But good editing can really make them special. The surprises are what keeps me interested. Learn an editor, spend as much time as you can, and you will stumble on ways to use them that never are mentioned in free tutorials. It takes hours of experimentation, learning tutorials and then letting it sink in how to use what you learned creatively. It is a must to learn layers and their modes and masks. There are some really great ways that are not that difficult to do, to emphasize what light qualities you do have in a shot. Good luck.

I think everybody agrees that light is important, and I think many if not all of you also would agree that post-processing makes the final image look better. Also, I'm pretty sure some of us do more post-processing than the other do to their images. So there, 1234

1234 wrote:I want to learn how to edit landscape photographs like the ones on this landscape gallery. can someone point me in the right direction? I looked all over youtube, but couldn't find anything that looks even close to the pictures on here. I know for sure that its the editing that makes the picture. i shoot in raw. please help me!!

In answer to your original question, have a look at this Article by Greg Downing. Though it's not specific to landscape images, I think it may be the sort of information that you had in mind.

I think there comes a time when we need to put together our skillset and be a master of what we have. Then we have the best chance of later being a master of greater things.
To master what you have take lessons from someone who knows their stuff and can pass it on without breaking your bank balance. I would recommend taking a fine art digital print class with John Paul Caponigro (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/workshops/). Get one to one feedback, learn processing and composition, see your brain explode and a whole lot more. Don't worry that it seems to about printing. I think the prices are exceptional value and it was worth my travelling from NZ to attend.
David