Congratulations to EdwinM for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 7 votes - View Previous Winners
One of the things that most landscape photographers thrive for, is to shoot iconic locations with the right moment. Natural atmospheric moments or phenomena are a plus when we shoot earth laden natural structures. Here is a shot of Kirkjufell, a popular spot in Iceland with Aurora dancing above its peak.
Sweet shot.
The foreground is relatively bright, so I assume it is a composite?
I'd consider darkening the foreground a bit and tame the yellow patch beneath the mountain.
Great shot!
dgdg wrote:
Sweet shot.
The foreground is relatively bright, so I assume it is a composite?
I'd consider darkening the foreground a bit and tame the yellow patch beneath the mountain.
Great shot!
David
David,
It's a single shot, attached is the raw files from the series. The yellow patch is from an incoming vehicle's headlight thus the incandescent color on the waterfalls. This was taken with a quarter moon fyi. Thanks for the tips though.
As far as post-processing goes, I am no expert but wonder what your feeling is about cloning out the telephone poles at the base of the peak? I see the bridge to the left of the image too, so human intervention in the scene will remain I suspect. I don't have a strong feeling one way or another but where possible removing annoying things like wires and poles makes sense to me.
Another nit I have with a lot of SINGLE images posted here is that many photographers do not include EXIF data. I think that is unfortunate because a great deal can be learned from examining this information. I note that you have not posted EXIF data for this single image. Would you be able to repost with EXIF included?
Keep up the excellent work. I look forward to seeing more.
That is sure cool to see the dancing aurora and overall a very nice image. Two thoughts though. 1st, that water in the lower right corner is distracting, and losing that in the image I think would strengthen it. 2nd, it looks like the camera was exposing for the ground in this single image exposure. The issue then is the sky is brighter then it should be, or at least to look at this the sky sure seems to bright. I would leave the ground layer as it is, and darken the sky about 2/3rds to 1 stop.
angel manguel wrote:
Another nit I have with a lot of SINGLE images posted here is that many photographers do not include EXIF data. I think that is unfortunate because a great deal can be learned from examining this information. I note that you have not posted EXIF data for this single image. Would you be able to repost with EXIF included?
angel manguel wrote:
Edwin, it's a beauty!! Well done.
As far as post-processing goes, I am no expert but wonder what your feeling is about cloning out the telephone poles at the base of the peak? I see the bridge to the left of the image too, so human intervention in the scene will remain I suspect. I don't have a strong feeling one way or another but where possible removing annoying things like wires and poles makes sense to me.
Another nit I have with a lot of SINGLE images posted here is that many photographers do not include EXIF data. I think that is unfortunate because a great deal can be learned from examining this information. I note that you have not posted EXIF data for this single image. Would you be able to repost with EXIF included?
Keep up the excellent work. I look forward to seeing more.
Thanks for the pointers but for me, unless the elements distracting is dominating a certain part of the frame or hinders visual path like vibrant colors then I cropped them. I felt the poles adds a sense of scale in my part.
The exif are intact, check the link of the higher res version the exif details are there.
That is sure cool to see the dancing aurora and overall a very nice image. Two thoughts though. 1st, that water in the lower right corner is distracting, and losing that in the image I think would strengthen it. 2nd, it looks like the camera was exposing for the ground in this single image exposure. The issue then is the sky is brighter then it should be, or at least to look at this the sky sure seems to bright. I would leave the ground layer as it is, and darken the sky about 2/3rds to 1 stop.
Jim
Hi Jim, how is it going? Thanks for the tip about the water on the lower right, will try cropping it, I just feel Im gonna cut more of the side of the mountain than I already did and it might be more of a distraction. But i'll definitely consider it. Keep those valuable tips coming.
For the sky or exposure per se, I think I'm aiming for that brightness, as visual memory would tell, the sky lit up because of the aurora and add the quarter moon's light. Since we are viewing this in various forms of mechanical devices such as smartphones, tablets or pc's, we may have varying brightness according to our calibration. So I'm posting the photo with a histogram which I think will be constant no matter what device we use.
As you can see the histogram is on the black-shadows side of the histogram. I feel it maybe too underexposed if I mellowed down the brightness of the sky.
Thanks again for the feedback man, hope to meet and work with you soon! Regards to Doc Lester.
As others have said, this is very fine just as it is. You've explained your thinking very well, e.g. the so-called distraction in the lower-right corner.
I have no evidence, but…it seems that some of the nicer images that appear here also receive the largest number of comments offering helpful hints on how to IMPROVE it.
