The following are some pictures of Bow River (right in Lake Louise) - I was out on a hike and my goal was Larch and I did not want to hike before the sun came up because of bears and dark. So I got these at sunrise and went on to hike yesterday.
They all look a tiny bit oversharpened to me. Especially 1,2,3. The grad is given away in the exposure on the tree on the left on 1,2 but is most noticeable in #2. My favorite is 4 because the lines lead nicely into the frame, there is no bush or tree in the forground blocking ( 2,3 ) and the peak isn't obscured ( 1,3).
Sharpening is a strange thing, so dependent on output medium and viewing distance. In each of these photos, the sharpness of the immediate forground is what catches my eye.
Hi Scott,
I agree with Paul. A bit too much sharpening in the first 3.
I'm not experienced enough to tell NG effects from artifacts of a polarizer and of blending images with HDR. Whatever, 1-3 all appear off, with areas which are too light around the sky/tree boundarie, esp on the left. Maybe present on the last, but within acceptable range there.
I think Kaden's comments are a bit harsh and unfair. However, I do respect the encouragement from "Kreative Kaden" (I know you are reading this and OK with a bit of pushback) to be more experimental. He sets a good example. However, you are concentrating on landscapes, have wonderful "material" to work with locally, and a number of engaging images. Compositionallly, all are "nice" but the last has far too much foreground stone to retain interest, appears slightly bowed down in the sides, and possibly tilted down left. I like the first three.
Thanks sbeme - I think I need to fix the sky a bit as you say - I was just experimenting with sharpening here but I should have got the image better before i started. HDR sometimes leaves light areas near gradients that I fix by overlaying the original and painting on - but that is work intensive for a wintery day. I was trying the recommendation from Landscape forum.
dclement7 - thanks for the feedback - I appreciate the input - it is always helpful to me to know which one looks best. I think that one is worth fixing a bit. Thanks.
The others are good, but I like the color and composition of the first image best. Yes, it looks a bit over-sharpened to me, but I find it hard to evaluate images as small as the allowed size here. I like your first version of number 4 better than the second version. I'm distracted by what looks to be image noise in the trees on the right. Have you tried number 4 re-composed with a little cropping of the rocks at the bottom?
Scott Stoness wrote:
What is everyone else doing - do you save unsharpened or save in photshop multiple layers (sharpen overlay) or just sharpen and save in jpg losing the layers. I am now at 2 tera bytes and climbing between movies and pictures and music.
Better?
I can't speak for everyone else, but I will do my edits and flatten ONLY if I am sure I won't want to fool with them later. This gets saved as a PSD. I will flatten and sharpen / resize / profile depending on where it is going, i.e. web / print then save a copy for that destination as a high level jpg, but NOT over the original edited psd. I only save as a jpg once at the very end. Some will complain about the use of a jpg at the end, but I have never seen artifacts from the compression if saved once.
Of course some photos don't get any special treatment and get mass edited via batch routines I use.
pearlstreet wrote:
I love the first shot, Scott. It is beautiful.
Sharon
Thanks for the feedback Sharon - I appreciate the input.
Thanks for the feedback on the horse Scott and Kaden - it was meant to be more of a joke to lighten up the post. My daughter rides horses and I shoot horses when I wait for her because she likes horses.
AuntiPode wrote:
The others are good, but I like the color and composition of the first image best. Yes, it looks a bit over-sharpened to me, but I find it hard to evaluate images as small as the allowed size here. I like your first version of number 4 better than the second version. I'm distracted by what looks to be image noise in the trees on the right. Have you tried number 4 re-composed with a little cropping of the rocks at the bottom?
Sharon, I should have mentioned that I knew there was fringing/haloing around the trees - I am going to fix it up - I was experimenting with sharpening. And it appears that I went to far. I shall look at 4 with less rocks. Thanks for your suggestions.
Melor wrote:
I can't speak for everyone else, but I will do my edits and flatten ONLY if I am sure I won't want to fool with them later. This gets saved as a PSD. I will flatten and sharpen / resize / profile depending on where it is going, i.e. web / print then save a copy for that destination as a high level jpg, but NOT over the original edited psd. I only save as a jpg once at the very end. Some will complain about the use of a jpg at the end, but I have never seen artifacts from the compression if saved once.
Of course some photos don't get any special treatment and get mass edited via batch routines I use.
I like the composition in the last one best. If I'd taken it I'd print it large, hang it on the wall and try to fake modesty when I received the compliments.
As you may know I am a horse person and as such and photographically I like the horse picture. It is very, very good. Great light! Most non-horsey people don't know to catch the ears forward as you did.
My only critique are the four rails in the left background. I would clone them out. Other than that, great blokah.
Thanks