Clouds.

[Spike]

Thanks Geoff, the controls in Picasa are powerful but easy to use at the same time. I have Corel Paint Shop Pro, and although the straightening feature is very easy to use, some of the other controls are quite complicated, but it is a powerful programme so probably worth persevering.

Spike

[[Geoff Slocock]]

I have just had a look at Corel Paint Shop Pro.

With advanced software you always have advanced controls. So inevitably there is the extra stuff to learn. Many controls however are very similar across the software packages.

In my own case I have learnt how to use Picasa even although the Gimp has always been my first port of call. There are some features which are virtually unique to each advanced editor, too; but that is really only relevant when we are talking finer points.

Some people start to learn in one advanced editor and then make a transition. Obviously getting fluent in learning your way around a menu system is very valuable. And, on making, a transition you have to relearn some of the navigation.

But it would be advisable to stick with one advanced editor for a while. Very often, too, youtube videos for features on one editor can be interpreted as being applicable to another.

Picasa certainly packs a considerable punch, though.

But, yes, persevere. And where appropriate persevere in small measured doses.

[[Geoff Slocock]]

200 px wide. Enlarge in [^popup] or [^new tab].

200 px wide. Enlarge in [^popup] or [^new tab].

200 px wide. Enlarge in [^popup] or [^new tab].

200 px wide. Enlarge in [^popup] or [^new tab].

---

[/hr]In this last one the Picasa workflow is

[list][*]Fill with Light (slight)
[*]Auto Contrast
[*]Sharpen[/list:u]

Now the interesting question is which one would you choose and why.

This last one is without the benefit of any graduated filter. Now it is possible to apply a graduated filter just to the sky area, but that method is somewhat out of reach at the starter stage. The lower part of that picture is the best of this collection, I would say.

Because we have the sea in the picture, a starkly blue sky will detract from the composition.

So, even although the upper part of the sky could usefully be darkened a bit, the methodology for doing that is off limits, at the moment.

So, I think, Spike, if the issues in this picture are anything to go by, it will be a while before you can get so good with layers that you could put the icing on this particular cake. Each software suite that has layers is complicated and involved.

But the last version is not bad, is it?

What I can do is devise a really simple working with layers challenge. And that could help in developing a sense of what is involved in flexing one's muscles with layers.

[Spike]

I think I would go for the last one Geoff, as it is probably closest to what I was seeing with the naked eye.

Spike

[[Geoff Slocock]]

It fascinates me how I have picked up on being able to make decisions on variations on an image. I used to feel lost for words in being able to give explanations.

There is a certain point where changes look unreal and yet there are also occasions when you might want to emphasise how unreal a finished image is. So it all sort of depends on exactly what you want, doesn't it?

[[Geoff Slocock]]

[ithumb=200]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5370209007_5c6bb0e1f8_b.jpg|Original supplied by Spike[/ithumb][ithumb=200]http://bridgecamerausers.co.uk/images/spike_3.jpg|Processed but without graduated filter[/ithumb][ithumb=200]http://bridgecamerausers.co.uk/images/spike_5.jpg|Graduated filter applied only to sky[/ithumb]

---

[/hr]The method I used for the last image is different (but equivalent) to the YouTube video which I have referenced.

There is never one exact and only method for achieving any result, it seems.

So, overall, we have the foreground lightened and the background darkened; and although the tonal range of the camera is limited we have a result which is more like we would see with our own eyes.