The castle of the knights templars

[andrejan]

Still not bored...

By the way, how did you create the shadowed borders around your pictures?

Andre

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by andrejan

...By the way, how did you create the shadowed borders around your pictures?

To be honest I don't exactly remember how I found it in CS2. If you poke around the HELP files for borders, frames or standard actions, somewhere or somehow you'll come across 'Drop Shadow Frame'. Then it's just a matter of 'playing' that action when all else is finished.

I'm really sorry not to be more help. Maybe someone who knows more than I do (Rense, probably) will expand on this. However, I liked it as soon as I saw the effect and I've simply kept it as a standard action.

Mr P

[Rense]

I heard someone calling my name.
Something like

How to Create Patterned Borders on an Image in Photoshop

How to Create Patterned Borders on an Image in Photoshop
Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

?

[Mr P]

Thank you, sir.

Mr P

[andrejan]

Knight Rense to the rescue!
Thanks.

Andre

[RJohnston]

If you reduce in a Histogram, the Red and sometimes Green in any shot, you might be very surprised how much the clouds will show up. Especially if you shot it in RAW. Detail is there, you just have to know how to bring it out. Tone could also be improved in the statue.

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

If you reduce in a Histogram, the Red and sometimes Green in any shot, you might be very surprised how much the clouds will show up. Especially if you shot it in RAW. Detail is there, you just have to know how to bring it out. Tone could also be improved in the statue.

Thank you for the observations. I will take note.

Mr P

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

If you reduce in a Histogram, the Red and sometimes Green in any shot, you might be very surprised how much the clouds will show up. Especially if you shot it in RAW. Detail is there, you just have to know how to bring it out. Tone could also be improved in the statue.

imho nothing short of a re-shoot can be done to save this photo. However, you are very welcome to try. Here is a link to the original .jpg image, uncropped, unsized, un-anything.
www.dasilva-foto.com/extra%20photos/statue.jpg

Mr P

[Rense]

Originally Posted by Mr P

imho nothing short of a re-shoot can be done to save this photo. However, you are very welcome to try. Here is a link to the original .jpg image, uncropped, unsized, un-anything.
www.dasilva-foto.com/extra%20photos/statue.jpg

Mr P

the photo is to white for me .

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by Rense

the photo is to white for me.

Do you mean you can't do anything with it or do you mean you don't like it?

If the former, neither can I except re-shoot. If the latter I challenge you to change/improve it.

Mr P

[Rense]

the sky is to white ...

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by Rense

the sky is to white ...

I Know that. It was one solid layer of high white cloud and I was shooting into the direction of where the sun would have been only if......

But you didn't answer the question.

Mr P

[Rense]

Originally Posted by Mr P

I Know that. It was one solid layer of high white cloud and I was shooting into the direction of where the sun would have been only if......

But you didn't answer the question.

Mr P

I meant to write: ...the sky is to white for any recovery action whatsoever.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by Rense

I meant to write: ...the sky is to white for any recovery action whatsoever.

Agreed...good thing the image is about the STATUE not intended to be a landscape masterpiece.

The OP stated that they almost didn't post this image for that reason. Therefore, the sky discussion is basically a mute point.

[Ellbee99]

Originally Posted by RJohnston

If you reduce in a Histogram, the Red and sometimes Green in any shot, you might be very surprised how much the clouds will show up. Especially if you shot it in RAW. Detail is there, you just have to know how to bring it out. Tone could also be improved in the statue.

Thank you for trying to help. As stated by the OP this image was posted only to show the statue. They almost didn't post because the conditions did not allow for the proper representation of the statue. I don't think the dissection of this particular image is appropriate due to the fact that the OP (original poster) mentioned when posting that this image was not 100% up to his usual standards.

[RJohnston]

Originally Posted by Mr P

imho nothing short of a re-shoot can be done to save this photo. However, you are very welcome to try. Here is a link to the original .jpg image, uncropped, unsized, un-anything.
www.dasilva-foto.com/extra%20photos/statue.jpg

Mr P

IF you noticed, I said something like "if you shot it in RAW." You give a link to an 8 Bit JPG file. Unfortunately the clouds cant be saved in that file.

Ive never used anything but a Nikon that shoots RAW for digital, so know what can be done with them. Every time you work on a JPG and save it, quality is lost so its much better to shoot in RAW mode. Especially in such situation.

BUT, something can be done, worked on it about an hour, if it had been a RAW file could have made it better. One good reason for doing so, it is cheaper to do it, than to have to go back and reshoot. Especially if on a vacation where the location can make it impossible.

[RJohnston]

Because it was a JPG file, had to literally rebuild pixels. As I could not view the original JPG while doing so, some areas will not be accurate. With a RAW file, it would take much less time and look much better.

[JMC]

very well documented. your eye was spot on for the project...well done!

[Mr P]

Originally Posted by Ellbee99

Thank you for trying to help. As stated by the OP this image was posted only to show the statue. They almost didn't post because the conditions did not allow for the proper representation of the statue. I don't think the dissection of this particular image is appropriate due to the fact that the OP (original poster) mentioned when posting that this image was not 100% up to his usual standards.

Thanks Lori for making a valid point.

Originally Posted by RJohnston

IF you noticed, I said something like "if you shot it in RAW." You give a link to an 8 Bit JPG file. Unfortunately the clouds cant be saved in that file.
Ive never used anything but a Nikon that shoots RAW for digital, so know what can be done with them. Every time you work on a JPG and save it, quality is lost so its much better to shoot in RAW mode. Especially in such situation.
BUT, something can be done, worked on it about an hour, if it had been a RAW file could have made it better. One good reason for doing so, it is cheaper to do it, than to have to go back and reshoot. Especially if on a vacation where the location can make it impossible.

Thank you for your post and for having spent time on making an alternative example.
Having issued the challenge, and it having been taken up I decided to experiment simply as an academic exercise. The results are obviously fake and unacceptable which is why I hadn't bothered to try earlier. As I have already said, only a re-shoot would be acceptable. Luckily it is only half an hour's drive away.

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to work with layers in Lightroom (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) and I used layers in PhotoShop to make this fake. The issue about JPEG vs RAW has been discussed elsewhere.
Mr P

[RJohnston]

Personally, I do not think anything any photographer does with their work is "fake." Photography is not just a journalistic medium, it is an art form. Years ago, I quit working as a photo-journalist, to photograph what I wanted. They want you to portray the scene accurately. But, then the story they write to go with the image is so distorted that I hardly recognized it. News media does not print only the truth, they print what they believe will increase the bottom line.

Just as any artist, you have "Creative License" a painter or sculptor would not create exactly what they see. They create what they see in their mind. Create the image how you see it in your mind and we may enjoy it much more.