How would you edit this picture? (Page 3): I prefer the first shot. The issue with the second image is, although it’s pleasing photo with some moodiness, your sky suggests a setting...

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I prefer the first shot. The issue with the second image is, although it’s pleasing photo with some moodiness, your sky suggests a setting sun behind the mountain peak, but the bottom of the image shows bright sunlight on it. The first image does it for me. It seems more balanced.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

I like the first two better than the third.

JimBart Loc: Western Michigan

I would take the first one slightly brighter but with the sky of the second.
My wife said the third one but slightly darker

10MPlayer Loc: California

To answer the question, I'd get rid of the big black area on the right side of the image. It adds nothing. I like both of your versions. My only tiny critique is that big black area in the lower right corner. To get rid of it you would have to crop the big tree on the right side with it. Maybe once you tried it you would change it back to the original. Who knows. You'd have to try it and see if it works.

Mr. B wrote:

Here's my go at number three since it was the most natural.

Overcooked. The sky doesn't look natural, it's too dark and the result is white haloes around the trees. My approach is to make it look natural. If my adjustments are obvious then I've overdone it but that's just me.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Ellen101 wrote:

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

That’s a great point. A goal for good landscapes is to be there when the light is most flattering and then work with that in post.

Michael1079 Loc: Indiana

Very nice original and also pretty nice post processing. I like the original (3rd one). The sky in the 2nd image of the group definitely has a dynamic style. However, if I were going to hang one on a wall, it would be the 1st image of the group. The sky seems natural and the colors seem to 'pop.'

Barre Loc: Fairfax Co, VA

#2 is more dramatic. Nice edit

WayneRobinson Loc: Atlanta, GA

I like #1. Sky looks fake in #2

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Delderby wrote:

The original has to be closest to reality (truth). So where does that leave the two edits, except further from the truth.
Photographers spend $$$$$$ on cameras to record a scene as accurately as possible. You are suggesting that they shouldn't bother. I think you should stick to paint brushes and imagination as you are suggesting - but first join an art class.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. If you want to use your camera to record reality in every detail, that is your choice. Others may want to use their camera as a tool for pursuing a creative endeavor that will allow them to express their own vision of the world and the things in it.

Stan

Barre Loc: Fairfax Co, VA

StanMac wrote:

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. If you want to use your camera to record reality in every detail, that is your choice. Others may want to use their camera as a tool for pursuing a creative endeavor that will allow them to express their own vision of the world and the things in it.

Stan

Stan, you are absolutely correct. I like abstract pictures. I've submitted several. As you said, "Others may want to use their camera as a tool for pursuing a creative endeavor"

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

StanMac wrote:

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. If you want to use your camera to record reality in every detail, that is your choice. Others may want to use their camera as a tool for pursuing a creative endeavor that will allow them to express their own vision of the world and the things in it.

Stan

Yes - you are quite right - each of us must do our own thing to our own satisfaction. I've been there and done it.
I just wish it was possible to indicate where creativity takes a hand in an image.

JBuckley

#2 works for me.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

AzPicLady wrote:

I like the original best of all. If you MUST replace the sky, then the first one is better. I frankly don't like sky replacements, because my mission is to record what WAS, not what I'd like it to have been. But that's just me, and obviously not you (or most of the people on the Hog).

I agree.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, 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.

I like the original but would crop a little off the right side.

neillaubenthal

I like 3…it might not look as totally natural as other versions…but I’m not overly concerned with that…I post the version I like. My blog…my decision, although occasionally I post a more ‘natural’ edit in addition to the one I like.