Shadows on the mountains: I am experimenting with sun-setting shots to get shadows. This one captured the effect I was after, but the sky was flat, so I substituted. Comments and...

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

I am experimenting with sun-setting shots to get shadows. This one captured the effect I was after, but the sky was flat, so I substituted. Comments and suggestions welcomed.

(Download)

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

I appreciate the wonderful subtlety of the mountains. The sky for me is a distraction, both too strong and not really belonging, although I notice that you tried to make the light properly directional. Can't you just intensify your original sky a bit? It shouldn't upstage your star, the mountains.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

UTMike wrote:

I am experimenting with sun-setting shots to get shadows. This one captured the effect I was after, but the sky was flat, so I substituted. Comments and suggestions welcomed.

Did you replace the sky in a different layer? I find it helps to adjust opacity for a dropped in sky to make it look more realistic.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

artBob wrote:

I appreciate the wonderful subtlety of the mountains. The sky for me is a distraction, both too strong and not really belonging, although I notice that you tried to make the light properly directional. Can't you just intensify your original sky a bit? It shouldn't upstage your star, the mountains.

That was my fear, probably better to just darken the original.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Did you replace the sky in a different layer? I find it helps to adjust opacity for a dropped in sky to make it look more realistic.

I used the Landscape Pro plug in. I will go for a better, more subtle replacement.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Nice shot...I need to learn how to do that - replacing the sky....haven't learned that yet.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

I disagree regarding the sky. I live at about 8000 feet altitude in the Rockies and skies of this intensity are common. Thus, to me it looks natural. Sometimes when I look at skies here I'm reminded of the line from the John Denver song "Where the sky looks like a pearl after the rain." I do think the taller mountains could be a bit lighter and show more detail.

EOB Photo

One little trick, at least in photoshop, is too use a slight gausian blur on the sky without distorting it's place in the image. This helps with the depth of field to our eyes.

Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom

UTMike wrote:

I am experimenting with sun-setting shots to get shadows. This one captured the effect I was after, but the sky was flat, so I substituted. Comments and suggestions welcomed.

Very nice Mike - good to see the shadows but there is always a price to pay I guess - but the shot still looks very good.

bbrowner Loc: Chapel Hill, NC

To me... and since you plugged the sky into the mountain shot...

The scale of the sky does not seem to fit the scale of the mountains. Not that it isn't possible. But, to me, the clouds look to be the size and breadth of only a portion of the breadth of the mountains.

I hope I'm making myself clear.

Barry

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

Mike I am viewing this on an IPAD, so I am not sure my comments are a true representation on your image. But as far as I can tell you did a good job with the sky replacement. Perhaps you could post the orginal for us to get an idea what you had to work with.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

UTMike wrote:

I am experimenting with sun-setting shots to get shadows. This one captured the effect I was after, but the sky was flat, so I substituted. Comments and suggestions welcomed.

I downloaded your photo and enlarged it: I'm afraid you have a bit more work to do: the resolution of the sky does not match the resolution of the mountains.
The sky is pixelated.
If you don't have a sky picture of the same resolution as the mountain part, one option would be to enlarge the sky picture before you use it to replace the existing sky above the mountains. If one picture is, say, 300 ppi, the one you use for replacement, should also be 300 ppi, and fit in the "replacement area" without stretching.
Hope I didn't confuse the matter for you.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

CindyHouk wrote:

Nice shot...I need to learn how to do that - replacing the sky....haven't learned that yet.

I cheated, the Landscape Pro makes it very easy.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Wanderer2 wrote:

I disagree regarding the sky. I live at about 8000 feet altitude in the Rockies and skies of this intensity are common. Thus, to me it looks natural. Sometimes when I look at skies here I'm reminded of the line from the John Denver song "Where the sky looks like a pearl after the rain." I do think the taller mountains could be a bit lighter and show more detail.

That is the thinking that led to this version. I am working the sharpness over. Thanks for commenting.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

EOB Photo wrote:

One little trick, at least in photoshop, is too use a slight gausian blur on the sky without distorting it's place in the image. This helps with the depth of field to our eyes.

Good point, I do need to get beyond Light Room.