I also changed the tint towards the green a bit because the pink in the clouds didn't seem natural.
Ad astra per aspera
The white area under the other colors is just an indication of the proportion of black in the image.
Personally I dislike this tool since one can't tell what is really being changed. I would suggest you try to get the same corrections with the curves tool in the main area of photoshop.
There are way to achieve white balance as well as fixing the overall brightness and contrast. Unlike this tool the curve shapes give you a visual indication of what is being modified.
It takes a bit of time to master, but it is worth it, for images you want to look their best. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Clicking with the middle (50% grey) eyedropper on the blue-ish hills in the distance tells Photoshop to white-balance to the opposite of blue-ish, which is this sepia, and then clicking with the white eyedropper in the brightest area, which is the cloud centre-left top. It's not quite the same as using a sepia filter or colorize.
If you try to find a more usual mid-grey you'll get a more accurate colour balance. There are auto-mask methods for finding the 50% level in a shot, but it's usually more fun to click around with the eye droppers at random to see what happens.
This is almost a photo magazine shot. You'd need an even longer exposure on the waves to make them even wispier, an even wider lens, and ideally you'd also need to take it at sunrise or sunset to make everything look dramatically pink or orange. This should be followed by even more dramatic Photoshop colour enhancement, until you get something that looks like a rather poetic episode of Star Trek, where the sky is bright pink and misty and the clouds are made of hydrogen.
I'm not suggesting any of these are a good thing, but it's the kind of style the mags seem happy to print rather a lot of.
I'd rather:
which is a slightly less familiar crop, but I think it still captures some of the essence of the scene.
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Then I make layers that emphasize these differences - such as a layer to bring out the detail in the rocky cliffs by lifting brightness just in these areas that I have selected by the magic wand. Or distinguishing between the sea/sky and the beach/rocks and making one cooler and one warmer. I used about 6 layers here and then played with the transparency of the layers - most of them just a few percent opacity. So I make raw decisions and then fine time them interactively.
The decisions are always based on telling a story that the audience will accept. The better you know the particular audience, the better you can tell the story.
IMO there is no such thing as a 'true' photograph. You can't be me, I'm taken
IMO there is no such thing as a 'true' photograph.
Acceptance of distortion (starting from the framing) is entirely dependent on the audience - even if the audience is you ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Art is, after all, a very precise coordination of mind + eye, plus tool and medium. Serendipity can also play a part - like Japanese calligraphy - but serendipity born of the tools, not of the mind. You can't be me, I'm taken
I managed to bring out some details not seen in the original ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
When you frame a shot you are translating your total experience of an event, or moment in time, into a narrow channel that not only excludes all the other senses, but also excludes 95% of the spherical moment that you inhabit.
The camera, lens and image capture system that you pick up, is already an intrusion into the total reality of theat moment. If you then make a slight adjustment to contrast and colour of that image, you have already further distorted sensual 'reality'. You can add a lightning strike - that is also distortion. This addition is obvious here, since the original from which it is derived is presented also. But in another situation - sitting in a photo library? Is it real or is it not?
The key is, of course, the audience. What do they accept? How do they react? What have they seen before? Have they had a similar experience to which they can compare?
Just taking a photograph is manipulation. I don't see any difference between the moment (the sketch) and any manipulation that may come later (the work) You can't be me, I'm taken
It is all art. The story depends on you if the audience is zero (just yourself), and also depends on you if the audience is one million. I don't see how the money comes into it. You can't be me, I'm taken
