Thanks everyone for great input. It seems that some of you prefer second (cooler) version. I don't know exactly when the blue became the colour and symbol of the night. How many of you have actually seen blue night, especially with full moon on the sky? I have an impression that it is rather an influence of some kind of a trend than personal experience of photographers. I like blue and it is all fine from art perspective but does everything has to be blue to be believed and seen as a night shoot? I remember this topic coming out once in a while when certain photographers decide to go against the trend and post natural looking photos anyway. I'm going to keep both version here for now and see how many of you will like the blue one more. Thanks.
First off, love the shot and comp - just cool as heck.
I do like #2 better. I don't think it's because it's blue. To me, #1 almost seems to have a yellowish, almost brown color cast. I'm just seeing better color separation in #2.
ArturS wrote:
Thanks everyone for great input. It seems that some of you prefer second (cooler) version. I don't know exactly when the blue became the colour and symbol of the night. How many of you have actually seen blue night, especially with full moon on the sky? I have an impression that it is rather an influence of some kind of a trend than personal experience of photographers. I like blue and it is all fine from art perspective but does everything has to be blue to be believed and seen as a night shoot? I remember this topic coming out once in a while when certain photographers decide to go against the trend and post natural looking photos anyway. I'm going to keep both version here for now and see how many of you will like the blue one more. Thanks....Show more →
I have many times seen the grass, moss and rocks become a very warm daylight tone on a cloudy moon lit night. But never the sky if it is well past sunset..... and the water seems a bit warm for night even under these circumstances.
It really is a beautiful image but I would play with more then white balance to get this right.
I love this photograph. You did an amazing job, it's really compelling. I love the - almost - sepia tones of the clouds. It will make a beautiful print
Apr 28, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I would have sooner seen a more natural rendering of this image with the composition that you captured as I don't feel that it needed much else. The long exposure clouds add nothing to this but confusion and just add an element that is just not needed. A single take would have been perfect in my eyes to freeze the clouds and work them with the composition that you have.
My 2 cents.
My opinion is the direct opposite. These are surreal as captured and I am in the camp that loves the surreal.
I think these are the best, coolest, most cutting edge, otherworldly images from Patagonia I have ever seen!!! Just flat out AWESOME! As much as I like Marc and his work, this may be my favorite of all time.
My only critique, I would dare, is that I might like to see them slightly brighter maybe pushing white closer to white... I think that is what is bettering the second image. I am not sure what color balance I would prefer if the contrast and brightness of the two was the same.
Way to go! I hope you win some major award(s) for these!
Thank you all, again for comments and suggestions. I have just uploaded a new version that I think I am going to stick with for a while This version is somewhere between the other two that I posted earlier.
Mark Metternich wrote:
My opinion is the direct opposite. These are surreal as captured and I am in the camp that loves the surreal.
I think these are the best, coolest, most cutting edge, otherworldly images from Patagonia I have ever seen!!! Just flat out AWESOME! As much as I like Marc and his work, this may be my favorite of all time.
My only critique, I would dare, is that I might like to see them slightly brighter maybe pushing white closer to white... I think that is what is bettering the second image. I am not sure what color balance I would prefer if the contrast and brightness of the two was the same.
Way to go! I hope you win some major award(s) for these!...Show more →
Mark, thanks a lot for your honest opinion and valuable professional input. I really appreciate it. For me the most important is to stay open minded in order to get new compositions and unique shots. And I see you get it, too.
ArturS wrote:
Thanks everyone. Thanks GroovyGeek, I know Marc's photo and I have seen it before I went to Patagonia but when I got there I was trying my own new compositions. I also took some photos with composition similar to his. This is totally different composition and lighting. There is more to come
Absolutely, I did not mean to imply anything other than to compare and contrast the two compositions. I like how yours opens up to more of the mountains and turns the Cuernos, which are featured front and center of most photos from Salto Grande and Lago Pehoe into a more subtle part of the composition. It is a fresh take on the scene. On the other hand by doing so you are pulling the viewer's attention in two different directions. The waterfall anchors the front half of the image and the mountain the back. This creates somewhat of an unresolved tension between the two areas, as you have light in both places and not much to connect them.
ckcarr wrote:
As far as GroovyGeek's thoughtless posting of a link to another photography board and another person's photograph because he "likes it"... well it's not only against our Landscape forum's guidelines to link to external sites, but also inconsiderate and detracts from ArturS and his presentation. If that other photographer wanted to post here, they would have.
Wow, I guess some only want "good job" and "great light" comments. Did not know that learning from others is such a capital offense. As for posting an a link to an external site - guilty as charged. I see that a mod has fixed my transgression, my apologies.
ArturS wrote:
Thanks Nigel. I'm not sure what do you mean by "more natural rendering" in case of this photo. In my opinion this is as close to natural as I can remember. This is a 25 seconds exposure with very minimal clouds movement and this looks very very close to the raw file and the scene that I saw that night.
I understand where Nigel is coming from. The contrast and luminosity of the clouds are a bit inconsistent with the rest of the scene.
What's this about a 2nd shot? I only see one photo, did I miss something? If you had two shots here, you should keep them as a lot of the comments now don't make a lot of sense.
I like the shot with is presently showing, not sure if it was your original of it is your edited shot, But it looks pretty cool. As for the WB or CB, in most shots there is a latitude to adjust the WB.
Am I the only one who didn't photograph Patagonia this spring?! This is probably my favorite of all the images that have been posted recently. I feel at the current state you have it edited that it's the most natural. Well done! Also, is it just me or is there more petty sniping than usual on FM lately?
ArturS wrote:
Thanks Nigel. I'm not sure what do you mean by "more natural rendering" in case of this photo. In my opinion this is as close to natural as I can remember. This is a 25 seconds exposure with very minimal clouds movement and this looks very very close to the raw file and the scene that I saw that night.
Hi Artur,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your image, but I just feel that the clouds are fighting with the mountains for the focal point of interest and that is what bothers me. I'm not sure where I should be looking, the mountains or the clouds if you can see what I mean. I just feel that there needs to be some separation between them.
Just my 2 cents Artur so please don't take it the wrong way.
This version is somewhere between the other two that I posted earlier.