Scanman

have a look at these excellent photos on this website

How do they achieve this look (forget the gorgeous locations!) It look slike they have been coloured in with fine crayon or something, I just cant put my finger on it. I am not too sure whether I like the effect because it starts to look more like a painting than a photo. They are all highly over saturated.

Thought you brains might now how...!
http://www.timecatcher.com

this one in particular.

http://www.timecatcher.com/Ian/dawnport.html

Many thanks

Welles

I'm not a photographer but from reading the descriptions of the photographs on that site, all of them include filters, long exposures and other photographic tricks rather than Photoshoppish tricks, I think. For example, the particular one you pointed out reads, "Portknockie, Near Buckie, Moray, Scotland, UK1 sec, F16, Fuji Velvia, 0.5 ND Hard Grad Filter."


Maybe Lee will catch this thread... he'd know.


PS Welcome to the forums, Scanman. [righton]

dug

I dont do alot of photography but I would say that image is done with a longer exposure time (see the waves blurring) and with a polorizing filter (gives brighter colourings). This can be done with PS by increasing saturation and colourings, maybe use a levels adjustment and then hand bluring the moving areas (I have also used the smudge to get that effect)

Saying all that the camera way always gets a better image....

My 2 cents....

fotobill

The film (Fuji Velvia) is known for it's high color saturation.
The filter seems to have been a graduated (gray to clear) filter with a shorter than usaul transition between dark and clear area of the filter. ND means neutral density (gray).
The filter holder rotates and the rectangular filter slides in it's track so you can postiton it where you want it. Often used to darken the sky. The exposure time was indicated to be 1 second which would add some blurring to the water.

Welles

Glad you caught this thread, fotobill. So do you think that the image was captured by the camera 'as is' without PS retouching?

Elaray

I'd say 99% of the effect in the pictures are great photographers with the best equipment. But I'd dare say some have been saturated in PS after the fact. Heck, if you have the resource to make the colors pop, why wouldn't you? [honesty]

The halo thinger in the sunset looks like what happens when I use too much brightness/contrast in a picture with a setting sun and clouds.

Scanman

I still dont think I have got you all to grasp the point.]

As a photographer myself, you just dont get slides that look like this. Look at the texture of the grass, the rocks etc and the lighthouse area.

There is something that is being done to the colours on photoshop that make this look like a ver detailed painting. Look at other landscape photos and none seem to have this quality about them.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/i...=28305&u=28305


Thanks so far one and all.

Silky

I don't know what you see, but without a higher quality image it's really hard to tell. Maybe you're just noticing jpeg artifacts, or maybe your monitor.... \:]
Personally I don't any Photoshoped effect that might have been done to those photos, and I look over that site to see if any programm was used to enhance the photo and I found nill. [honesty]

Welles

Say, Scanman, why don't you send an e-mail directly to the photographer and ask directly? I'm sure that the Ian Cameron who shot "Dawn at Portknockie" which you linked in your first post is the same who shot "Emerald beacon" and there is a contact link on the Emerald beacon page.

Red Rooster

I agree with everyone Scanman to me it looks like it was an actual photograph

you should email the photographer like welles told you :} then you will really know.