I'm getting ready to print this shot and I wanted to gather some opinions on something. In my original edit of this shot I added a grad at the top to invert the gradient in the sky that quickly got brighter and drew the eye upward. In the recent edit I decided instead to simply slow down the gradient so as to keep a more natural look.
You'll notice other differences, since I completely re-did the edit. It's a 2-exposure composite and the blend is different, the sky is less saturated in the first (I think due to a levels adjustment set to 'luminosity') and the WB is warmer in the second shot. So, my questions are:
a) Grad at the top, or the natural look? Something in-between?
b) WB cool or warm?
Try to ignore the difference in saturation in the sky if you can. I already have an inclination on a), but I don't want to sway anyone's honest opinion, so I'll wait to share that.
Is the slight banding in the skies an artifact of the reduction to web-size, or is it present in the originals? o my eyes there is slightly less banding in the second. Otherwise each is good and, although different, I like them about equally.
Absolutely gorgeous image. It will be great in print!
Sky-wise, second or Kent's rework. First in unnatural going dark, lighter, dark in the sky.
WB change is subtle. And its hard to imagine this subtlety will be fully controlled as you go to print.
Print-wise, what size, paper, and how is it being fulfilled?
