two versions of sunset
Sep 2, 2013 11:59:06 #
The picture was taken in Cornwall earlier this year. About 10-15 minutes after sunset, at f22 on tripod with a 4 stop nd filter. I was trying for a very long exposure to blur the water. What i got was a too-dark picture without a lot of color. I shoot Raw, so i figured there was still a lot of info buried in the darkness. Didn't process the shot until few nights ago, mostly using adobe camera raw with some photoshop and a final touch of nik. I was, frankly surprised at what i was able to pull out, admittedly adding lot of warmth to the sunset in ACR.
Now the question...which version is better. In the first version i tried for a more balanced look to bring out the details in the rocks. In the second version i darkened the rocks and brought up the sunset in an attempt to draw the eye into the shot. Does either image do anything? HONEST comments.
Now the question...which version is better. In the first version i tried for a more balanced look to bring out the details in the rocks. In the second version i darkened the rocks and brought up the sunset in an attempt to draw the eye into the shot. Does either image do anything? HONEST comments.
after editing ver1
more editing ver2
Sep 2, 2013 12:13:43 #
Sep 2, 2013 12:52:54 #
No. one, I think not two is over egged, Nice image by the way.
Cadugand wrote:
The picture was taken in Cornwall earlier this yea... (show quote)
Sep 2, 2013 12:55:43 #
Sep 2, 2013 13:00:35 #
axelsabro
Loc: E. Wa. Columbia River
Like number two better. When I saw number one it looked kind of bleached out to me and I was hoping for more detail on the rocks, and you did a good jiob of bringing that out .
Sep 2, 2013 13:51:57 #
Sep 2, 2013 14:55:47 #
fawlty128 wrote:
I prefer the sky in #1(more natural) but the rocks in #2
I guess I sort of agee with you. I may just try a combo. Another comment said rocks in the first one were sort of bleached out. I think that was bothering me also. Thanks.
Sep 2, 2013 21:19:19 #
Cadugand wrote:
The picture was taken in Cornwall earlier this yea... (show quote)
I prefer #1 over #2, the sky in the second photo doesn't seem real to me. The better picture would be sky #1 and rocks #2, then you might have something worth a second look.
Sep 3, 2013 05:38:06 #
Sep 3, 2013 06:23:05 #
fawlty128 wrote:
I prefer the sky in #1(more natural) but the rocks in #2
For sure and a fairly simple composite.
Sep 3, 2013 08:18:07 #
In landscape photography, it is better to have something in the foreground to enhance the look and to make eyes follow the flow. The foreground can either be clear or blurred with different DOF
Sep 3, 2013 08:18:42 #
MagicFad wrote:
I prefer #1 over #2, the sky in the second photo doesn't seem real to me. The better picture would be sky #1 and rocks #2, then you might have something worth a second look.
Oh my, I didn't mean to sound abrupt or snooty, "worth a second look" only meant to convey that the combo would be the best of both pictures. My apologies, I hope I didn't offend you.
Sep 3, 2013 08:35:47 #
AZakphoto
Loc: Lewes, DE
#1 works for me. More natural. and what perhaps your eye saw when taking the photo. Great work!
Sep 3, 2013 08:57:19 #
fawlty128 wrote:
I prefer the sky in #1(more natural) but the rocks in #2
ditto :thumbup:
Sep 3, 2013 09:17:35 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.