What's wrong with this picture? It was taken from the deck of a house on a hill near New York City but unfortunately the background behind the bushes was a view of the roofs of nearby...

srg

It was taken from the deck of a house on a hill near New York City but unfortunately the background behind the bushes was a view of the roofs of nearby houses. So I took the liberty of substituting the skyline. What i should have done is to flip the skyline layer horizontally because the light there is coming from the wrong side. But after all that work I'm sticking to the story that at this particular moment there were two suns at opposite sides.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I wouldn't have figured since I wasn't there. It's not IN MY FACE obvious to me.
Just looks a bit over saturated for my taste.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

srg wrote:

It was taken from the deck of a house on a hill near New York City but unfortunately the background behind the bushes was a view of the roofs of nearby houses. So I took the liberty of substituting the skyline. What i should have done is to flip the skyline layer horizontally because the light there is coming from the wrong side. But after all that work I'm sticking to the story that at this particular moment there were two suns at opposite sides.

The excessive boost in color saturation is ok for the foreground, but makes the rainbow look unnatural and fake...just my opinion.

Didn't even notice the light direction because the rainbow slapped me in the face.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

srg wrote:

It was taken from the deck of a house on a hill near New York City but unfortunately the background behind the bushes was a view of the roofs of nearby houses. So I took the liberty of substituting the skyline. What i should have done is to flip the skyline layer horizontally because the light there is coming from the wrong side. But after all that work I'm sticking to the story that at this particular moment there were two suns at opposite sides.

Everything

Nah just kidding. If your happy with what you've done, Then it is all good.

The following is just my personal view;
Although the 2 suns can be deduced if scrutinized and the clouds not the correct perspective/scale, that does not pop out as much as the over saturation. That and maybe oversharpening too, gave the trees a glowing light in their edges against the sky. The same adjustment may have affected the sky/horizon replacement that it made it to look, if not magnify, its lower image quality that banding readily shows. The background-sky, building and the rainbow, does not show on the smaller gaps in the trees. The rainbow looks off as it is too hard, opaque and vivid. They normally look wispy like a ghost.

In essence, aside from toning it down i'd also choose to make the rainbow bigger and crop the bottom of the image to the base of the left rectangular pot, but that just my personal taste.

All in all, it's a nice composition

Brokenland

flip1948 nailed it.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

The sky and rainbow have been added later - just doesn't look right having the rainbow in front of the trees

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

The only real problem that I see is that the rainbow is extremely over-saturated and therefore gaudy-looking.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

flip1948 wrote:

The excessive boost in color saturation is ok for the foreground, but makes the rainbow look unnatural and fake...just my opinion.

Didn't even notice the light direction because the rainbow slapped me in the face.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

flip1948 wrote:

The excessive boost in color saturation is ok for the foreground, but makes the rainbow look unnatural and fake...just my opinion.

Didn't even notice the light direction because the rainbow slapped me in the face.

I agree with flip1948
Bud

williejoha

This shot is totally overcooked. It looks totally fake. IMHO
WJH

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Longshadow wrote:

I wouldn't have figured since I wasn't there. It's not IN MY FACE obvious to me.
Just looks a bit over saturated for my taste.

Agreed.

RichinSeattle

Besides other comments, it might help if the Empire St. Bldg. was actually vertical.

srg

RichinSeattle wrote:

Besides other comments, it might help if the Empire St. Bldg. was actually vertical.

I think that they actually used the old rock at the end of a long string technique when they built it so your worries are moot.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Just from a quick look, the colors are a bit over-saturated.
--Bob

srg wrote:

It was taken from the deck of a house on a hill near New York City but unfortunately the background behind the bushes was a view of the roofs of nearby houses. So I took the liberty of substituting the skyline. What i should have done is to flip the skyline layer horizontally because the light there is coming from the wrong side. But after all that work I'm sticking to the story that at this particular moment there were two suns at opposite sides.

srg

flip1948 wrote:

The excessive boost in color saturation is ok for the foreground, but makes the rainbow look unnatural and fake...just my opinion.

Didn't even notice the light direction because the rainbow slapped me in the face.

The lady who took this photo with her cellphone asked me to emphasize the rainbow. She also did not like the view of the neighbor's roof. From the 2nd floor of her house you can see the city skyline but not from the deck. She was so happy with the result that she gave me a crisp $100 bill for the 8x10 I made for her (I tried to refuse the money) and her son who I also gave a copy to, gave me some infused gummies which I will pass along to someone who likes that sort of thing.

Come to think of it, doesn't that make me a "professional" photographer?