This is one my night shots from Patagonia. It is a two shot blend. I did a 5 minute exposure for the rocks in the FG to get more light and details.
On my monitor the darker version looks better but I am including a brighter version as well.
I know that not everybody likes these blended images but I would love to hear your thoughts on processing of this image. A lot to learn.
Harsha
Nice work here. I think I like the darker foreground better too.
As for blending, it's always good to declare that. Almost every star shot will require a blend of some sort, so for me I have no issues with it. It's when a blend doesn't look natural is where i would have an issue. The key to good processing is when the viewer can't tell there was blending, dodging, cloning, etc.. But hopefully this thread doesn't spend more time discussing blending as opposed to just enjoying the wonderful work here by Harsha.
I know this is probably not what you want to hear, but I wouldn't hesitate to crop away everything below the mountains. Not for a second. I think the water, and the fact it's so colorful, detracts from that beautiful sky. The foreground rocks are great, and might work wonders for a daylight shot, but they don't compliment those near black mountains, IMO.
You did a great job processing the sky—nice color; looks natural. And the composition is nice. The problem I have with these composites of the MW is the transition where the sky meets the ground (in your case, the mountains). The sharpness of the mountains is significantly greater than the sky which, IMO, makes it appear as a composite.
Not sure how you blended the two images, but if you selected the ridge-line of the mountains as your demarcation, it’s obvious. If not, I don’t understand how the mountains are so much sharper than the sky; except, perhaps, a change of focus. I realize the sky is moving relative to the mountains, but the image just looks contrived to me. If the focus was on the sky (i.e., the stars), the mountains should be a slight bit OOF.
Nice work here. I think I like the darker foreground better too.
As for blending, it's always good to declare that. Almost every star shot will require a blend of some sort, so for me I have no issues with it. It's when a blend doesn't look natural is where i would have an issue. The key to good processing is when the viewer can't tell there was blending, dodging, cloning, etc.. But hopefully this thread doesn't spend more time discussing blending as opposed to just enjoying the wonderful work here by Harsha.
Jim
Thank you for the comments. As always very helpful
Harsha
Chance2 wrote:
I know this is probably not what you want to hear, but I wouldn't hesitate to crop away everything below the mountains. Not for a second. I think the water, and the fact it's so colorful, detracts from that beautiful sky. The foreground rocks are great, and might work wonders for a daylight shot, but they don't compliment those near black mountains, IMO.
I debated about cropping the image as you suggested for a long time. After spending lots of time getting the FG focus and exposure correct, part of me wants to show my hard work. Anyway appreciate your the comments and input very much.
Harsha
You did a great job processing the sky—nice color; looks natural. And the composition is nice. The problem I have with these composites of the MW is the transition where the sky meets the ground (in your case, the mountains). The sharpness of the mountains is significantly greater than the sky which, IMO, makes it appear as a composite.
Not sure how you blended the two images, but if you selected the ridge-line of the mountains as your demarcation, it’s obvious. If not, I don’t understand how the mountains are so much sharper than the sky; except, perhaps, a change of focus. I realize the sky is moving relative to the mountains, but the image just looks contrived to me. If the focus was on the sky (i.e., the stars), the mountains should be a slight bit OOF.
Hi Jack,
I got the sky and the mountain from a single exposure at infinity. I focus the stars and the stars are tack sharp in my raw files. However I processed the sky and mountain differently. Sky required significant NR in LR (70) vs mountain (30). That may be the difference you're seeing. I may have done a different sharpening to mountain range too. Don't remember for sure. FG shot was processed separately with less NR in LR.
Thanks for taking time to look and critique. Appreciate it very much.
Harsha
Harsha, I really don't judge my "likes" or "dislikes" in photography by the method used to produce the image. If the final result pleases me then it is a great image. If not then I move on.
It is nice to have the photographer divulge a blended image but not a requirement for me.
Your images are well done no matter how you achieved/processed them. Yes being a single exposure of your quality is highly regarded and harder to achieve by some... Balance in both images is great!
Dan
I like it Harsha. Very nice work. Amazing what you captured for the foreground while it was dark out.
Generally for the foreground, I prefer to take a twilight image which allows a much lower iso and exposure time. It is still a shadowless image and with a little exposure and color balance adjustments, easily resembles what one would see with a touch of moonlight.
Wonderful shot! I really like this. I am trying to learn more about night photography and have a question for you if you don't mind. Was this a moonless night?
Harsha
I really like the composition - I think you did a great job in setting this up. As for the processing - I am still too "new" to the MW processing process to offer specific improvements - other than to offer that the foreground looks good - but the mountains and sky are leaning a bit too "black" for me.
My only other nit is the name - this is actually from Torres Del Paine - not Fitz Roy.
Hi Harsha, this is a great shot, I appreciate all the work involved editing an image like this. I prefer the darker version, and I think you did a super job processing the MW and balancing the sky and foreground. As usual, your composition is wonderful. I was going to comment on the ghost line between the sky and mountains, but when I go to your website, the ghost line is not there. Perhaps you did more sharpening before posting here?
Chance2 wrote:
I know this is probably not what you want to hear, but I wouldn't hesitate to crop away everything below the mountains. Not for a second. I think the water, and the fact it's so colorful, detracts from that beautiful sky. The foreground rocks are great, and might work wonders for a daylight shot, but they don't compliment those near black mountains, IMO.
That was the first thought that came to my mind as soon as I saw the picture. the mountains and sky are great, what below doesn't belong to the picture
Very nice images. I slightly prefer the one with the darker foreground. Were it mine, I might even make the landscape (foreground and mountains) slightly darker. All this is subjective, of course. Beautiful images!
Keith W.
Harsha,
I prefer the darker image. These images are subject to artistic leeway and your rendition IMO is pretty stunning.
The processing looks very good !
Regards,
Dean
