A case of photoshop trickery?

bigiron · 02-16-2017, 05:05 AM

I was doing a search and noticed a couple of photos with one looking natural

PhotoID:
Photograph ©

and another by the same poster which looks like the sky was masked in the photo using a sky scene from another photo (as the clouds are different than the first photo) as the whole sky and surroundings look off....the edge of the tree branches mixing into the sky in the first "natural" one are normal color and the second one they are the color of the sky (background).

PhotoID:
Photograph ©

Maybe I'm wrong but it also looks like the headlights are funky too. The tree edges along the sky are just distorted and I wonder what others think. Am I off base in thinking this is another case of a picture being "manufactured" to make the cut? I see too many better photos discussed here that get the ax to see questionable shots at best on the site, IMO.

Constantly perplexed, Rich

RobJor · 02-16-2017, 11:15 AM

Stick my neck out here?

The exif shows 3 minutes apart, same day which would be consistent with the same sky and the uphill train clearing before the light helper downhill. On the uphill you have exhaust distortion and photograph wise he is struggling shooting head on with headlights so there may have been some extra p/s work controlling both the headlights and keeping the shadows: going away helper does not have bright headlights or exhaust distortion.. The helper is shot at almost double the focal length so the relative size of the background makes sense???

Given the low light, I would say good technical work and view wise underappreciated photo, type of photo I like.

Bob Jordan

wheelnrail · 02-16-2017, 02:09 PM

Hi Rich!

To answer your question, no, I did not use photoshop nor masked the layers. I don't use photoshop in that way. I use it only to remove power lines and some branches that obscure parts of the train or are distracting. What you see is adjustments made in Lightroom.

As for the photos in question, Bob hit it right on the head. That evening the sky was that bright (I have 3 people that can vouch for me on that) and it was simply trying to balance the brights with the darks. It was not easy, but this was the result for the first photo. In hindsight it couldve been worked more maticulously and I should've used a higher ISO or lower shutter speed but it is what is is.

The second one I agree was more "natural". The light levels were much more manageable. If you take a look at the exif, both show different times, different focal lengths and different settings. Believe it or not light can change that much 3 minutes.

Tl;dr, no photoshop, just adjustments in Lightroom that I need to get better on.

Thanks for taking the time to look through my photos!

bigiron · 02-16-2017, 02:59 PM

Carlos, I stand corrected but I still feel the screeners could have rejected it for some issues. But my opinion doesn't count lol. Yes I know the sky can change quickly as you have seconds to catch the sweet spot on the light many times.
I do like the natural shot and just thought the sky/tree edge looked way off on the other shot no matter what the light was and commented on it and glad you chimed in. Hopefully no hard feelings.

Rich

miningcamper1 · 02-17-2017, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigiron

Hopefully no hard feelings.

That inflammatory "trickery" headline ought to be worth a hard feeling or two.

coborn35 · 02-17-2017, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

That inflammatory "trickery" headline ought to be worth a hard feeling or two.

Also the " but I still feel the screeners could have rejected it for some issues"

JRMDC · 02-17-2017, 02:35 PM

It would be interesting to hear from the Carlos just what were the differences in how he processed the two shots. One is a beauty - comment left! - while the other just looks off in many ways. Looks like a good learning opportunity.

Processing is not my strength, I don't often shoot this sort of light (to my regret) and I have no idea what has happened here.

JimThias · 02-17-2017, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

That inflammatory "trickery" headline ought to be worth a hard feeling or two. (eyeroll removed due to a stupid 4 images limit)

Quote:

Originally Posted by coborn35

Also the " but I still feel the screeners could have rejected it for some issues"

______________________

JimThias · 02-17-2017, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Processing is not my strength, I don't often shoot this sort of light (to my regret) and I have no idea what has happened here.

Time happened.

bigbassloyd · 02-17-2017, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

Time happened.

What he said.

I've attached two examples to prove the point. No editing done, just the raw file resized and saved as a jpeg. the time from photo 1 to photo 2 was 9 minutes.

troy12n · 02-18-2017, 12:12 AM

I don't think he's cloned in a sky, it would be VERY difficult to do in a scene like that under those conditions.

I think it looks "off" because the exhaust heat distortion is obscuring the clouds and they look weird. You can see the obvious focus is on lead locomotive, not the backgroud. I didn't look at the exif, but his iris might be more open in this shot than the first, to get more light.

In first shot, the background is more in focus, I think it's a function of all those things working together.

Loyd is right too, at that time of day, the difference in sky and cloud effects can be DRASTIC minute to minute.