Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

... these two images using all criteria you deem appropriate.
Many thanks,
Dave

(Download)


(Download)

repleo Loc: Boston

The only difference I see is in the exposure. I prefer the second one but I would try a touch more contrast.

Composition - it needs a point of interest - a splash of foliage color or a couple of ducks or a boat or something and I would try cropping off the left third of the frame. The scrubby bush on the left is uninteresting and makes the water look too contained. Cropping it off would open up the size of the pond to the imagination.

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I agree with Phil. It needs a point of interest. You could try adding contrast and/or clarity to the reflections to make them more eye-catching.

It looks like you lifted the shadows in the second one, but that has taken away some of the contrast. And the foreground grass is more distracting now that it is brighter. However, #2 does look more level.

Ourspolair

The processing n the first image is better - the cloud highlights are blown in the second one.
Composition in the first one is better, the tree trunk forms a better frame than the second. The first one has better wind-ripples on the lake. Regarding the criticism of a "lack of subject" I do not agree - the lake is the subject and making natural landscapes work is not all about there being something central to draw your attention. Regarding the horizon, I would readjust so that the tree were vertical in the frame. The shot is taken into a corner on the lake...
I would also use the "haze" adjustment to give a slightly darker blue in the sky without destroying the fluffy texture of the clouds.
Now I am going to hide for a while and wait for the fallout!
Stay well and keep up the challenges!

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

I like the framing of the second image because it shows the full trunk of the tree for better reference, but I prefer the exposure of the second one showing cloud detail and better color saturation.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Dave,

They are actually blown in both images but it's more obvious in the second image (there's only a 1/3 stop difference).

Learning to use the highlight warnings when shooting raw will help.

And since you had to crop it you might as well have leveled them equally.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Repleo, RG, Ourspolair, Julian, and Scotty

Subject? Split decision.
There were, in fact, some Canada geese in the water when the scene attracted my eye, but they were out of view by the time my car was stopped and gear was set up and, IMO, the scene was not significantly the worse for their absence. To my eye the lake is the subject and the anchor of composition.

Exposure? Tonal processing? Cloud highlights? Split decision
Again, Opinions vary re: significance of some clipped cloud highlights.
Tonal management regarding whether or not to include sites of detail-free white - as commonly with specular highlights and/or with brightly sun-lit clouds - is the result either of a creative decision or dictated by slavish adherence to the so-called “rule” that “detail free white is an abomination”. Clearly, I reject the latter.) I find that utilizing the option of allowing both specular highlights and some detail-less whites as in clouds on a full-sun day to be not at all inimical to overall image quality. IMO the final decision come down to exercise of the artistic license - that license we all hold and exercise according to personal esthetic.

Composition? Split decision
I was particularly interested in whether or not to tolerate some background to the right of the tree trunk. Julian opined in favor of the view of the full width of the trunk, and I am of the opinion that the revealed bit of bright background to the right of the trunk was a distraction from an otherwise orderly composition.

Leveling?
Note the horizontal dotted line. Comments re: “leveling” suggest that perhaps some illusory phenomena may have been at play.

An improved (IMO) treatment of the raw file is posted.

Many thanks to you all for your input.

Dave

(Download)


(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's not just an improved treatment. It's a totally different image.

Your first two images were taken at 1/1250 (LV=14) and 1/1000 (LV=13.67).

The third image was taken at 1/2000 (LV=14.67).

That's why the highlights are not blown.

Actual exposure is at Sunny 16

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Thanks, Scotty
Any comments on your impressions on leveling of the original two images?
And yep, you are right. That was from a different exposure of that session that I used for more and different processing. No intent of any sort to deceive! Just grabbed the wrong one. Anyway, in the end with differing treatments of sky (color temp, brightness) and foreground this version of the originally posted screen I thought preferable.

In the end, I’m most curious if I’m the only one who thinks so.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

They now seem equally level.

But in fact, if you had only shown us a single image we might not have noticed that they were not the same.

After all, the waterline should not necessarily be horizontal. It's slightly below the line of sight.

If you look at the third image, the shoreline on the left appears to be much closer to you than the shoreline on the right so it is logical that it should be slightly lower on the left.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

An interesting perspective.
Test it:
Slide the image upward until the waterline approaches the horizontal limit of your “display window”.
You will find, in fact, that the left end of the waterline is “slightly lower” than the right end.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It’s supposed to be lower. It’s closer to the camera and below your line of sight.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

And, of course, it is.

Ourspolair

The latest image you posted is superb - I didn't bother to check the EXIF file and it doesn't matter. This image incorporates most of the points which came up in the discussion, your mind had already gone through those processes and the resulting capture embodied everything that you had in your mind when you first saw the shot from your car, except the birds as you first saw them. Well done. You involved a lot of photographers in the fruitful discussion. Please stay well and keep up the good work.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Thanks very much, Ourspolair,
I’m glad it was well received as was helpful.
And you,too, stay safe and stay well!
Dave