So not only can dehaze remove haze (up to a reasonable point), it can also add it! It can also be used as part of a radial or graduated filter to subtract or add haze or fog selectively.The new Dehaze control in Lightroom CC and Adobe Camera Raw 9.1 can help you to dramatically improve an image by removing haze. The Dehaze technology is based on a physical model of how light is transmitted, and it tries to estimate light that is lost due to absorption and scattering through the atmosphere. For the best results, you’ll want to set the white balance for the image before using Dehaze. Then, in the Effects panel, move the slider to the right – to easily remove the haze from the original scene. Move the slider to the left to add a creative haze effect.You can choose to make very subtle to very significant adjustments – if you’re pushing the slider to the extreme, you might want to refine the image using the Basic panel (increasing the shadow detail or refining the Vibrance slider) in order to achieve the exact look that you’re after. [...]
Matt Quinn wrote:Chuck,
"The third picture below is the scene as I "saw" it, mind's eye."
Here''s a quote from Schopenahuer that might fit this discussion obliquely: "...the task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no one else has thought about that which everybody sees."
Trying to make sense of that hurts my head. I think I'll go outside and take some pictures. Happy Sunday. Matt
LindaShorey wrote:Re the dehaze filter, I have PS Elements which uses a "stripped down" version of ACR (no dehaze, at least in PSE 13). I hear ya about being undecided on which way to go. When that happens I usually just go out and take new photos and forget about the conundrum
Charles Haacker wrote:Elsewhere we have been having a lively discussion about the ethics of manipulation in landscape photography. This post is not about ethics but rather the manipulations themselves, at minimum a demonstration of possibilities. In 2014 we went out to photograph the Point Arena Light on the northern California coast. I was hoping for sunset but the furshlugginer fog rolled in. We'd spent considerable time on a rough dirt track to get out there. I usually go with whatever Mother hands me, so I shot pictures and at the same time tried to time things so I'd get a seagull (or two) in the shot but the (stupid) seagulls sailing over your shoulder are just like wherever.
The first picture below is a straight-from-the-camera jpeg. To me it is illustrative of why I cannot be an SOOC photographer. My recollection is that this is what the scene actually looked like. BLEH! YUCK! Flat! The third picture below is the scene as I "saw" it, mind's eye. Clearly there has been considerable manipulation on that one, but at base it's still just the first yucky shot, but enhanced. Several things happened here. It was worked globally in Lightroom using my now fairly routine steps, including setting white and black points (which I now consider essential and are not the same as highlight and shadow) and applying The Miracle Tool, dehaze! Then I took it into Photoshop, slid the (stupid) gull back to where he ought to have been had he had any manners, and then borrowed another gull from one of the other exposures. I was well satisfied and thought myself clever beyond measure.
But as it happens, Matt Quinn liked the misty version better! So I went back and reworked the picture to restore the sense of mistiness while still setting black and white points, which I find essential to keeping a picture from looking muddy. Then I put the gulls back.
So what we have are three fairly different versions of the same picture, and the original a jpeg at that (although I now shoot nothing but raw having Seen The Light so to speak). This shows that properly exposed jpegs can most certainly be successfully post processed to a fare-thee-well, and that uncooperative seagulls need not be a hindrance to good composition provided you are willing to compromise your ethics.
But seriously going back to the ethics thing, Matt remarked, "... I begin to think that intent is central to the issue of truth v deception. When I am photographing, I want to capture what I felt when I saw the scene. The feeling can't be expressed in words, only in the picture; that's why I take it instead of writing a poem.The emotional reaction is to something visual; a poem could be also be an attempt at that, but more frequently a poem conveys intellectual responses for which words, with their sounds, are more appropriate. (The word "roar" mimics the sound of the waves on the rocks and takes time to say it; a picture freezes the wave and allows us to contemplate and admire it.) The scene I saw was the third one. The scene Matt preferred was the misty one. If there is a point to this post it's that, within reason, you can have both.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests