I find that Contrast and Clarity help ice to look more icy. It'll also help if there's a bit of contrast between the ice and the background. In this case, if the background was as dark as the foreground, the ice would be less inclined to blend in.

Yes, that's definitely better than your previous final attempt lol. Your perseverance has paid off.

My first suggestion is, if you want to make the flowers the main subject, don't include such an interesting background.

My second suggestion is, forget about making the flowers the main subject. The flowers are an excellent addition to an excellent landscape shot, and since it's a landscape shot, the whole scene is the subject. The flowers will make their presence felt even if they have a smaller share of the scene (but keep them in the foreground).

My third suggestion is, go back when the light is more favourable. The shadows half way down the slope on the left are less than optimum. The angled view along the side of the slope makes for a very interesting perspective, but the shadows disrupt the "flow" (if that makes sense).

My fourth suggestion (and I'm guessing here) is, move to the right a bit so that more of the slope is visible. And if that made more of the railroad visible, that would be an added bonus. But keep the craggy outcrop in the top right, and keep the horizon with a glimpse of sky. You could lose some of the left hand side of the scene (but you'd want to keep the whole slope) and maybe add some more to the right hand side to bring the craggy outcrop away from the edge a little bit.

My fifth suggestion is, process to make the river an eye-catching feature. It would act as a pleasing anchor while the eye explored the rest of the scene.




And also



I find myself standing in direct opposition to that rebel and renegade Treepusher. I think #1 works best because in its essence the shot is a landscape not a flower shot.

(Treepusher - did you ever go to drama school by any chance? )

The RX100 ii has a zoom range of 28-100 (equiv).

Well spotted, Ms Holmes.

Thanks for sharing. I just hope that some day I'll be able to understand everything that you said .

That's true, but if your focus point ends up closer when you zoom with your feet, you're back to where you started.... DOF-wise that is .

The focus point would typically be on the main subject, so moving closer to the main subject brings the focus point closer, which in turn reduces the DOF.

Considering how blue the mountains were in the original, I'd classify your edit as being normalised (and very nicely too I might add). Thanks for contributing, Jim-Pops.

My response was primarily for John F.



http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=6556538&t=390434

This might help.

http://photorumors.com/2015/04/21/here-is-the-direct-link-to-downloadupgrade-the-standalone-version-of-adobe-lightroom-6/

Going by your edits, your grey cells are in fine condition .

Go to HELP>Updates. Clicking on Updates will initiate a search. The chances are that Lightroom checks for updates automatically.

I Googled just the name and got what I described. I found the video and tried doing what he described (for the original and two copies, one at +1 and one at -1) and I got a successful merge.

This is a good subject in a good setting. As a very general rule, it's considered a good idea to have a bit of space in front of the main subject rather than having them facing out of the frame (assuming the main subject has a face). The way it's composed here, the horse's rear end is taking centre stage .

21MB! We'll consider that a success then