Posted this in Landscape Forum as well, this was my first attempt at HDR in PS2. I know there are some dust artifacts, I will get round to cleaning them.
This is very nice (horizon in right spot, off centre in right spot, nice moon for interest) and a good subject for hdr because everything is still (no trees blowing that cause perceived softness).
To improve I would try making the grass a bit greener (more saturation) and playing with the cloud in the horizon so it looks less like smog and more like fog.
Adam, your shot is well conceived and shot. The HDR works well. But as you can see PP can make or break a shot and the redone shot with the high contrast and brighter colors really shows off the potentional of your great photo.
I love digital. I can go back on work I've done months/years ago and in a matter of minutes I can reinvent any shot with a simple curves or color boost.
A great shot, just needed a little punch to shine. You should take a stab at it yourself to define the photo as "completely" yours.
Chad is totally correct - your concept and execution created the image, PP is the icing on the cake.
I frequently find that the longer I've worked on an image the narrower my view becomes and it's often helpful to step back and return to the image later to continue work or toss it away, whichever is appropriate.
Through observing images on FM, especially this forum, and subsequent suggested mods by many fresh sets of eyes, I've come to visualize things somewhat differently --- even to the extent of anticipating others' comments as well as how s/he would alter it should the image be posted.
If you have ever programmed, you understand the adage "No program is ever done" --- programmers are compulsive "tweakers" --- I think the same can be said for many who practice digital photography (and, I used to program ).
I know this windmill, I drive past it most days, with all your "tweaks", thats not how it is. I am an honest snapper, I will manipulate so far and then there is a point.
It does not look like that!!! Sorry.
I have used HDR to try and give the best representation of a local landmark, as good as your tweaks are, in whatever light, the stones don't look like that. But that is as a local. If I had never seen it in real life and saw your version, maybe I would think it was a touch harsh and would want something between yours and mine, perhaps Monito is right...
Hi Adam
Coming over here from the Landscape forum where I normally live, I think Bobs version is too harsh, but I also thought that the original lacked a tiny bit of punch too.
I pulled it into photoshop, tweaked levels and curves slightly, added a touch of saturation. Flattened and sharpened and was at a point between the 2 pictures posted - but still perfectly "believable" in about 2 minutes
It is very hard to stay totally true to real life but I also really appreciate what you are trying to do here
I understand fully, which gets back to a question I posed a month or so ago about rules for entering a photo contest re altering images. I've seen posts on another forum which, to me, looked surreal and I sort of got flamed when I suggested that in reality things were not quite as they appeared in the image - explained away by filters and polarizer - I'm sorry but for me those alter the realty of that moment.
No two of us see the same image and no two of us will interpret it in the same way - and kudos to you for striving to capture and display exactly what you saw. As I said, I'm a compulsive tweaker, which helps explain why I often twist off bolts and heads of screws - just that one extra 1/4 of turn
I love photos that have drama. Reality often does not have drama. I think of photography as painting with a camera. Photo-journalism handles the reality part.
I prefer to look at a photo that looks bold, brightly colored with strong contrast. I think that is how we view the world in our memories anyways. I went to the Grand Canyon as a kid, I know it was overcast and gloomy(The one day out of 100 ). But as I remember it, it was glorious and bright. Therefore, I show off photos of the world and of people the way I want them to look, not often the way they actually look.
Everyone must make a personal choice on how they represent their work. But I often find that the truly successful and praised photographers show their photos as dramatic and bold. "Better than real."
As I said before, I real do like this photo, however you choose to show it.
Chad
sbeme wrote:
Mark,
did you mean to post your version?
Scott G
I actually didn't intend to, Mainly because I wasn't there so my level of processing would possibly not be what Adams memory of the scene was.
My intention was just to show the very little that I have learned from the talented people on here makes (in my opinion) a huge difference to overall image quality, yet takes so little time.
I have an awful lot to learn and maybe I should spend more time in here absorbing technique
However I will post it just for the opinons - but I am quite happy to remove it the OP has any problem with it.
I've got no problems with people posting alternatives. Please do, the more the merrier.
I prefer Mark's to Bob's (and mine!) as it seems less harsh on the stones and has not made the grass too lush. What takes two minutes for some people is a lot longer for others!
If you have time Mark can you be more specific with what you did?
).
). But as I remember it, it was glorious and bright. Therefore, I show off photos of the world and of people the way I want them to look, not often the way they actually look.