I’m after some technical advice/help on doing some rather major edits to this scene. Not what I normally do but I love this shot soooo much so I thought I’d give it a go.
The slope on the right had been climbed up and skied down. I wanted to remove the foot prints and ski tracks from the shot to ‘restore’ as much of the slope as possible.
I have posted 2 images here. The first is the ‘Before’ shot and an attempt at an ‘after’. In the after I have used a combination of content aware fill and the clone stamp to try and get as even an effect as possible. Maybe it is my eye (and the fact I did it) but I can tell its edited.
The content aware fill tool has left some sections ‘patchy’ and or ‘smoothed’. I would appreciate any advice on offer on how to edit the tracks out this shot and get a ‘realistic’ effect.
Tough to tell at web size, but it looks a little edited (mostly noticeable since you pointed it out). I might use a clone stamp at 8-10% opacity and a fairly soft brush and clone in just a little texture into the new smooth area. It might take some experimentation what area to use as the source. I posted a description of the technique at the CANP regional forum in the old site (a sticky at the top). It is an image worth devoting more time to.
I have a hard time seeing the edit myself unless you pointed it out to me. Unfortunately cloning and content aware fill are the main tools you can use… you could do like @Harley_Goldman suggests and use them much more judiciously by reducing opacity, it will take a lot longer though… and I’m not sure you need to in this case.
I think you’ve done an admirable job on the cloning/fill. The difficulty I see is that there isn’t really a good amount of “source” material to clone from or that CA cloning would be able to utilize. I initially thought of cloning in some texture using Harley’s method from textured foreground to the area further back along the top, but then it occurred to me that the near/far relationship wouldn’t be right - meaning the texture further away should of course be smaller - and not the same size as the immediate foreground. Needless to say, a difficult endeavor. The downward slope looks pretty good with what you have done and presented.
What I did want to comment on was the emotional connection. You love this image - because you experienced it and you want it to be what you want it to be (sorry if that sounds redundant…) And since I don’t have that connection, I’m relying on the image itself. It’s a grand view, great clouds and most certainly great contrast between the snow-covered ridge/slope and the shadowed mountain and lake; which is where I get disconnected. There’s little separation between the bottom of the mountain (dark slope) and the lake). I’m also thinking the foreground snow should be more white - but then again you have a full range of tones from white to black - and the midtones which is typically helpful in b&w.
I guess in the end the lack of detail in the dark mountain and lake diminish my response. And getting back to my earlier point, there’s just not the connection - because I wasn’t there.
@Harley_Goldman thanks for the suggestion. I had a few goes at various opacities, etc but nothing that low. I’ll have another crack in the next few days and see how I get on. Large scale editing/cloning out is not something I’ve really done before so keen to see how folk do it. Thanks again for your tip!
@Matt_Payne Cheers for your comments I think seeing the edits is less noticable at this scale/resolution. When you zoom in it is quite evident and I see it more as I was the person who did it (and I can be quite pedantic about small inconsistencies sometimes). In this case Im going to invest the time and effort to see how it turns out. Big reason is I want to print it eventually. As a matter on interest are you saying that you think it should be left as the original or not invest further time in additonal edits? Someone said earlier they preferred it au-natural…
@Lon_Overacker No offence taken in the slightest!! I’m here to listen to and discuss opinions, hopefully learn as a photographer and improve along the way. So all feedback is welcome (always).
It’s interesting that you brought the emotional connection up actually. I was thinking to myself earlier “how would others perceive this shot?” and the honest answer is that I don’t know. I showed it to my friend who was with me and he liked it too, but said because he was there. Like you say the shot to me is special. I will always see it with rose tinted spectacles and, again like you say, I was there. I saw the scene and pressed the shutter. Maybe that is where the emotional connection ends: between the scene and the photographer? I never thought about how someone like yourslef would connect with it but rather how I thought you (for example) would think I connected with it. Let me ask a couple of questions back.
Could you identify the possible connection I had with the scene from viewing the image?
I think that establising the photographer/scene realtionship is important with any image. I oftern look at peoples images and wonder how they feel seeing and taking the shot first and secondly how I would feel in that scene.
Do you think your opinon would be different if you were familair with the location? People often feel more connection with a familiar location rather than the unknown. This, in my opinon, is why folk always identify with locations in areas they know rather than something in another country for arguments sake.
After all my rambling (and I hope it made sense) I do see your side of it too. To be honest the processing is not ‘done’ as I havn’t completely decided what route to take with it. Apart from what I have already said I want people to appreciate it for a ‘piece of art’ too and I guess that means them having connection with it too. Let me finish it off and I woulkd be very keen to see if your opinion has changed at all.
Interesting discussion here. Really pleased your brought it up!
Eugene, Thanks for your response and yes, most certainly a worthy topic for discussion.
Most certainly an interesting topic. It’s so often simply about perspective and point of view. Interesting because I wasn’t considering how YOU were connected. Maybe it’s silly, but I already assume you (or anyone else presenting their images and work…) is already and obviously connected to their work. So I guess I just make the assumption the creator of the work is connected already to the scene and the image they captured. So to that end, as the viewer I’m just more interested in whether or not the image connects with me or not. Am I making any sense?
Ahhh, and this is at the heart of a discussion that perhaps we could carry on in to one of the discussion forums as I don’t want to dig too deep here… And I possibly have quite different feelings about this than others.
Could I identify the connection you had? I don’t see how I could? Perhaps this was the first mountain you’ve ever summitted and you had a feeling of euphoria and “on top of the world.” Maybe you’re simply an avid adventure skier and are proud and excited to ski down that slope for the first time? You see, I have no idea why you’re on top of that mountain; maybe photography was not the reason but you wanted to make sure you captured the moment?
I can only relate in the sense that I know what my images mean to me and I KNOW other photographers have deep meaning and connection with their images. But what is that connection? I have no idea why others connect to their work. And at least for me, knowing any little bit of this information usually doesn’t change my impression of an image. Again I may be different, but it’s the image that speaks to me, very little to do with who captured the image or why.
Now, location and more specifically a moment/event or circumstance most certainly can have an effect. Location can mean standing on a beach watching the pounding surf. One could be in Oregon or the shores of Whales… anyone who frequents the ocean and surf, can relate to standing there. Anyone who has stood at the base of El Capitan - can relate - but wait, do they relate the same thing? I’ve stood there perhaps not quite a hundred times in my lifetime. Often times I don’t even look up at the BFR… (big effin’ rock) - yet it still has special meaning to me because I’m so familiar (and never climbed it either…) But what about the 70 year old climber who spent his life climbing in Patagonia and never, ever made it to Yosemite… They just might have a different perspective and relationship standing beneath the grand monolith.
No rights or wrongs here, only opinions for our own lifetime of experiences and outlooks.
I don’t find the tracks to be really objectionable, but to answer your question, here’s a version using Frequency Separation to deal with the Textures and color separately. It helps when cloning / patching doesn’t seem to work well. This was done using the action for Frequency Separation in the TK V7 panel. I blurred it during the action to remove any of the texture, then on the Texture layer cloned from smoother textures to the areas of concern to smooth them out. The great part about doing it this way is the color (in this case tones in B/W and the shadows are retained).
I am guessing that the way you see it is ‘part of the landscape’ where someone has enjoyed their time there and that has now become intrinsic with the scene
Thanks for this tip @Keith_Bauer seems like it may solve some of the problem. I’ll give it a go and see how it turns out. I’m away for a few days so may be a while. Thanks again !
No, no one has any idea why I’m there, but isn’t that part of the romanticism of an image? The trying to figure it out. Why was the photographer there?? What did they see? What made them take that image? Personally I always think about when viewing other peoples photos, but maybe that’s just me.
To me that is where the real connection but also agree that a viewer needs to connect. The thought goes to how does one interpret that connection? Do you connect with the image maker or do you connect by seeing yourself in the scene.
I decided to edit to edit the footprints out of the flat area. But leave the imperfections on the slope mostly. Some of it was tracks that were edited out and some potentially slope collapse. This is much more aligned with with what was in my head.
I used a combination of methods to achieve the ‘cloning’ effect. Content aware fill on very small areas. This lessened the effect of smoothing fro using the tool. Combined this this with cloning from various areas at different opacities. Also used the brand new ‘enhance texture’ feature that was released in LR and Camera RAW cc this morning. Struggled with the frequency separation technique that Keith suggested a little bit. Going to have another go soon
The edit is now more 'complete. The lake has been dodged to add contrast and the brought up the whites in the snow, amongst other things.
Hi Eugene. I am not sure if this will meld with your vision of the scene, but I used the clone stamp at 100% and just selected from areas I thought would blend in reasonably well. I came up with this.
I think seeing the edits is less noticable at this scale/resolution. When you zoom in it is quite evident and I see it more as I was the person who did it 
(and I can be quite pedantic about small inconsistencies sometimes). In this case Im going to invest the time and effort to see how it turns out. Big reason is I want to print it eventually. As a matter on interest are you saying that you think it should be left as the original or not invest further time in additonal edits? Someone said earlier they preferred it au-natural…
