Manzanita Lake--Lassen NP (Page 2): I could adjust the vibrance, probably, and bring out more blue in the sky. But, what do you wanna bet someone will come in here and tell us the sky...

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

MtnMan wrote:

Nice job bringing out the detail in lake and sky.

Can you adjust the color to recover the blue of the sky?

I could adjust the vibrance, probably, and bring out more blue in the sky. But, what do you wanna bet someone will come in here and tell us the sky is too blue and looks unnatural? In reality, dark blue skies are natural in the higher elevations. Like your suggestion and will try that.

watchwinder Loc: Churubusco, Indiana

#2

MtnMan Loc: ID

ImageCreator wrote:

I could adjust the vibrance, probably, and bring out more blue in the sky. But, what do you wanna bet someone will come in here and tell us the sky is too blue and looks unnatural? In reality, dark blue skies are natural in the higher elevations. Like your suggestion and will try that.

Yes. I live in Idaho and often get the disbelief on our blue skies and the rocks in the southwest.

I also usually use a CP which enhances the blue. And that's how I see the world because I wear polarizing sunglasses.

Erdos2 Loc: Vancouver, WA

ImageCreator wrote:

I could adjust the vibrance, probably, and bring out more blue in the sky. But, what do you wanna bet someone will come in here and tell us the sky is too blue and looks unnatural? In reality, dark blue skies are natural in the higher elevations. Like your suggestion and will try that.

I'll take the bait.... I lived in Loveland Colorado for 27 years in the middle of my life. Being close to Rocky Mountain National Park we (wife and I) would purchase annual passes and often go up there at off times (weekdays and weeknights) to avoid crowds. It is the best way to experience the park. This isn't exactly the same as the Lassen area, but not a lot different. (both are at elevation, away from city lights, with cleaner air, etc.)

Now back to the photos. Yes the sky can be more of a rich deep blue, but not always. From my experience, I would say that the first photo is a lot closer to the realistic sky. It could be made a little bit more rich and deeper looking, but many days are probably closer to that photo as moisture in the air tends to mute the richness. One of the problems with making the sky a deeper color is the tint must be spot on for both the sky and the clouds, especially the lighter whispery ones.

Before I say the deeper blue sky is not natural, I'll wait to see a properly adjusted image. It doesn't look right in my editor with the tint changed to remove the purple, but that might be more my skill or lack thereof. As a comparison, I like the sky on the wiki page photo which shows a very deep blue (but no clouds at all, so it is difficult to compare). With foreground elements, and some interesting clouds, I like your composition better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lassen_Volcanic_National_Park#/media/File:Lassen_Peak_Manzanita_Lake.jpg

Jerry

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

Erdos2 wrote:

I'll take the bait.... I lived in Loveland Colora... (show quote)

Thank you for your insight. On this particular day the sky was about what it appears in the image. Although, I have seen it nearly cobalt blue. Mother nature has a varied palette. She's not predictable.

MtnMan Loc: ID

MtnMan wrote:

Yes. I live in Idaho and often get the disbelief on our blue skies and the rocks in the southwest.

I also usually use a CP which enhances the blue. And that's how I see the world because I wear polarizing sunglasses.

Here's my take on the subject (sort of literally but I guess a different lake). Went by on a motorcycle trip with my sons in July. Taken with D5300 and Sigma 17-50. Two images merged to panorama in Lightroom. Pretty sure I used CP.

(Download)

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I love #2 but I dont like the sky color, if it was more blue and less purple I'd love it even more. with that said, Your the artist if U like the sky then I like it too.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

bdk wrote:

I love #2 but I dont like the sky color, if it was more blue and less purple I'd love it even more. with that said, Your the artist if U like the sky then I like it too.

I don't like the sky in #2. On my monitor it didn't appear that purple, but when I downloaded to UHH it did. Thanks for looking and your comment.

joe west Loc: Taylor, Michigan

ImageCreator wrote:

Two images, one without HDR and the other with.
The original image was processed in ACR PSCC. The second image is the HDR processed in Photomatix, then ACR, PSCC and finally some Nik filters. I like them both. Its just a matter of personal taste.

#2 :thumbup: :thumbup:

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

Armadillo wrote:

ImageCreator,

The HDR processed image has a slight bit more depth in the forest and mountain, but suffers greatly from a color shift to the pale purple. Therefore the original is a better choice to me, but it has a bit excess in blue cast from the sky.

Both of your color problems could be corrected during each processing step.

If you corrected the purple cast you would have a winner.

Michael G

I agree with Armadilo. I thought the second shot looked a bit magenta.

Photolady2014 Loc: Southwest Colorado

Both are nice, but I think I like #2 a little better, more drama!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

ImageCreator wrote:

Two images, one without HDR and the other with.
The original image was processed in ACR PSCC. The second image is the HDR processed in Photomatix, then ACR, PSCC and finally some Nik filters. I like them both. Its just a matter of personal taste.

A duo of fabulous beauties 💙💙💙💙💙

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

ImageCreator wrote:

Two images, one without HDR and the other with.
The original image was processed in ACR PSCC. The second image is the HDR processed in Photomatix, then ACR, PSCC and finally some Nik filters. I like them both. Its just a matter of personal taste.

Gallery ready at this point 💙💙🤍💙💙