How would you edit this picture? I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people...

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

Attached file:
(Download)

(Download)

(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

(Download)

lukevaliant Loc: gloucester city,n. j.

i think the 3rd is most natural,but sky is best in #2

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I like the brightness of the rocks more in the first, but the sky in the second.

(It would be nice to label the images.)

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

I just noticed that the pictures don't show their names. The firs, lighter edit is Version #2, the darker edit is Version #3. The third picture is the original version

Ellen101 Loc: Manhattan NY ..now Spring Hill, Fl

I like them all
question: why edit a natural sceen?
I might try different times of day like sunrise , dusk and sunset etc.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ellen101 wrote:

...
question: why edit a natural sceen?
I might try different times of day like sunrise , dusk and sunset etc.

To create a different mood.

DRam11 Loc: Polson, MT

I vote for the first picture, version two. Somehow it has a more peaceful feeling to it.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

damianlv wrote:

I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

With #1 you should have gone with light/wispy clouds. The lack of shadow on the lower part of the picture doesn't match the replacement sky you chose. None of them hurts the eye, however.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

cahale wrote:

With #1 you should have gone with light/wispy clouds. The lack of shadow on the lower part of the picture doesn't match the replacement sky you chose. None of them hurts the eye, however.

Interesting.
I don't look for the sky matching the picture.
If it looks good, ship it.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

damianlv wrote:

I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

I'm not a pro, but when I looked at the first one I thought, I wouldn't touch it. That first photo is my favorite.

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

Thank you everyone for your opinions and suggestions. Now I can tell my wife that she's wrong (it's a joke of course)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

damianlv wrote:

I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

A fantabulous trio, Damian 💙💚💎💚💙

Bubalola Loc: Big Apple, NY

damianlv wrote:

I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

#1

damianlv Loc: Las Vegas, NV

joecichjr wrote:

A fantabulous trio, Damian 💙💚💎💚💙

Big Thank You!

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

1