You have some nice light on the mountains and cool clouds.
For my tastes, the sky is too saturated and contrasty with a bit of an aqua marine color cast. The darks on the bottom don't seem to have any detail and probably add little to the image - I wonder if a light pano crop would be beneficial. I think if you are processing it to look this way and like it, I wouldn't change a thing. It is an amazing place. Wish I were into photography when I went there years ago.
dgdg wrote:
You have some nice light on the mountains and cool clouds.
For my tastes, the sky is too saturated and contrasty with a bit of an aqua marine color cast. I think if you are processing it to look this way and like it, I wouldn't change a thing. It is an amazing place. Wish I were into photography when I went there years ago.
David
Hey Dave,
Yes, I know it has little bit of everything. I mentioned that I made it look this way to create this striking effect. With all honesty I see people prefer, and like a lot more, shots that have colors quite saturated than those washed out. This shot will make them adjust their monitors
Enjoy it
I hear you about that. I think if one is processing an image and achieves their desired result, then that's great. Certainly different from my aimless wanderings over a year ago when I had no idea how to get close to where I wanted things.
I've been researching/reading about milky way processing lately. One avid 'pro' remarked that images he processed for his liking and more readily accepted by astro photographers were not liked nearly as much by everyone else when compared to what he considered his 'over processed' images. When he spoke about 'everyone else', he implied, persons who would actually purchase images. I'd post the link (if it mattered) if I could remember it without digging around.
So it goes....
As far as your Patagonia gallery, it is mind blowing awesome.
dgdg wrote:
I hear you about that. I think if one is processing an image and achieves their desired result, then that's great. Certainly different from my aimless wanderings over a year ago when I had no idea how to get close to where I wanted things.
I've been researching/reading about milky way processing lately. One avid 'pro' remarked that images he processed for his liking and more readily accepted by astro photographers were not liked nearly as much by everyone else when compared to what he considered his 'over processed' images. When he spoke about 'everyone else', he implied, persons who would actually purchase images. I'd post the link (if it mattered) if I could remember it without digging around.
So it goes....
As far as your Patagonia gallery, it is mind blowing awesome.
I wish there was a tad more detail in the foreground. . . but WoW - the comp and the vivid processing works. Really presents a wild, out of this world side to Patagonia.
Dave
this is too much. and not in a good way. too me that sky is overcooked and the reds in the mountains far too saturated. but thats my opinion. take it or leave it. probably leave it
i bet it looks a touch better in wide gamut since you probably get the saturated mountain with a bit different shading, maybe just a trace heavy as it is now with contrast and sat, but close
killersnowman wrote:
this is too much. and not in a good way. too me that sky is overcooked and the reds in the mountains far too saturated. but thats my opinion. take it or leave it. probably leave it
Yes, killersnowman I know but I have clients wanting pics with such saturation. I also explained this in my post I overcooked the sky on purpose, so yes, I'm going to leave your suggestion. No offense taken though.
i bet it looks a touch better in wide gamut since you probably get the saturated mountain with a bit different shading, maybe just a trace heavy as it is now with contrast and sat, but close
You are absolutely right Skibum5. I do see the redness less saturated but I agree that overall this pic is over-saturated but just a tad.
Here is the less saturated and contrasty version. How about this?
The 2nd version is better. I do see some bad masking?/black line along the mountain range on the left for a 1/4 of the image. & some stitching errors? on the 2nd last mountain on the right fyi. I love the black foreground.
I actually like the first compared to the 2nd. I mean your purpose was to go buck wild, which you achieved that and if that's what your clients are lining up for, you gotta do what you gotta do to make ends meat.
I don't mind the clouds in the first, just the peaks has some bleeding red. But the second one seems you went too far to get rid of the effect, so it looks like its incomplete compared to everything else. Maybe just reduce the red a tad in the first one, if you want to keep the wild look.
MikeW wrote:
The 2nd version is better. I do see some bad masking?/black line along the mountain range on the left for a 1/4 of the image. & some stitching errors? on the 2nd last mountain on the right fyi. I love the black foreground.
It's fun to read all of this. Nope, there's not masking at all. And there's no stitching either. You just imagining things now.
roguecoolman wrote:
I actually like the first compared to the 2nd. I mean your purpose was to go buck wild, which you achieved that and if that's what your clients are lining up for, you gotta do what you gotta do to make ends meat.
I don't mind the clouds in the first, just the peaks has some bleeding red. But the second one seems you went too far to get rid of the effect, so it looks like its incomplete compared to everything else. Maybe just reduce the red a tad in the first one, if you want to keep the wild look.
Jason, I like my first shot better too, and I wouldn't change a thing. But I do agree that pulling saturation back in the peaks of the mountains only would make it little less crazy.
