Mountain clouds at sunrise

[Stagecoach]

I like #1 the best but all are good.

Thank you Paul, looks like No 1 & 2 seem to have something No 3 lacks in.

[Stagecoach]

Beautiful mountain photos. I think I like #2 best.

Thanks Nick, that's made No 3 feel more left out now

[IzzieK]

Not following the others comment...but I like #1. The first one I saw, the first one I like -- the pocket of mists and the background is exquisitely blended right. I also like the darker shade of blue merging towards the middle and getting more lighter as it goes to the left with the sunrise providing the break...beautiful and restful...I hope you did get to enjoy the view too instead of just taking a photograph of it...

[FootLoose]

I like the 2nd shot, Grahame, for the mist hovering in the valleys but I find the brighter leaves in the immediate foreground a bit too bright.

[Stagecoach]

Not following the others comment...but I like #1. The first one I saw, the first one I like -- the pocket of mists and the background is exquisitely blended right. I also like the darker shade of blue merging towards the middle and getting more lighter as it goes to the left with the sunrise providing the break...beautiful and restful...I hope you did get to enjoy the view too instead of just taking a photograph of it...

Hi Izzie,

No 1 I'm having another go at because I also like it but they are doing my head in I'm having the same problems as with the seascape images in that there are just so many possible variations and I go off track, look at it and start again.

Discipline is what's needed

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

I like the 2nd shot, Grahame, for the mist hovering in the valleys but I find the brighter leaves in the immediate foreground a bit too bright.

Greg, I'm glad you mentioned that because having finished another edit of No 2 and then reading your comment they have now been toned down and the eyes are not so easily drawn to the bottom as before.

I'll post it soon.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Grahame I'm glad that you decided to stick with the sweet f point. I agree with you about zooming in some more in #2 but I think even cropping the foliage in the FG just a little bit might help for a better look.

Hi Geoff IMO the oranges are too strong and look unnatural in your edit although I like what you did to the white clouds. May be decreasing the saturation in orange sky a little bit gives a better look.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame I'm glad that you decided to stick with the sweet f point. I agree with you about zooming in some more in #2 but I think even cropping the foliage in the FG just a little bit might help for a better look.

Hi Binnur, from my recent experience of all the seascapes and landscapes I no longer have any concerns regarding sharpness of the images whether shot at f/8 or f/22.

I used to worry about what I read regarding diffraction but I find the reality is with the lenses I'm using and producing images for web at 1200/1400 px width I could not tell what is shot at what unless I read the exif. I do know that at f/11 shooting a test target under controlled conditions f/11 gives a better result than f/22 but I can compensate for that and possibly unconsciously may in PP in the images I produce.

One other thing is that I know that my 28-105 shows greater edge sharpness at f/22 than at f/11 so the 'sweet spot' so often referred to is not the same as on that particular lens as far as I'm concerned.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Taking note of the helpful comments and re-looking at No 2 I have attempted to give it a bit more clarity to remove some of that washed out look, altered the colour more to how I recall the scene and toned down the bright foliage in the foreground.

The brightness of the very close foreground is a bit of a mystery because the only light in the area for miles was the small LED headlight I was wearing and I can not imagine that having any impact.

Geoff, your edit is similar to what I am tempted to do at times but is too far from how the scene was in the light prior to sunrise.

Binnur, I agree that removing some of the bottom foliage here would help and then to maintain the same ratio some would have to come off the left side. As I have already cropped this it is likely to reduce the IQ a bit too much for the size I need.



Grahame

[bnnrcn]

I think I used the expression 'sweet f point' wrongly Grahame, sorry for the miswording. I meant I agreed with you that you don't have to worry sticking with f/11 for the DOF issue with wide angles, not for the max. sharpness. Because Mike explained in Kim's last thread that diffraction has little if any practical application and it can be noticed in printed images from such a much closer distance than it is designed to be viewed from ; but the sharpness and contrast of consumer and prosumer lenses tend to be softer for other reasons at the extreme apertures than in pro lenses. So I think sharpness issue differs also according to the lens quality and your 28-105 is a good example for that . To be on the safe side I prefer to stay at f/11 as long as shooting conditions allow me

Hi Binnur, from my recent experience of all the seascapes and landscapes I no longer have any concerns regarding sharpness of the images whether shot at f/8 or f/22.

I used to worry about what I read regarding diffraction but I find the reality is with the lenses I'm using and producing images for web at 1200/1400 px width I could not tell what is shot at what unless I read the exif. I do know that at f/11 shooting a test target under controlled conditions f/11 gives a better result than f/22 but I can compensate for that and possibly unconsciously may in PP in the images I produce.

One other thing is that I know that my 28-105 shows greater edge sharpness at f/22 than at f/11 so the 'sweet spot' so often referred to is not the same as on that particular lens as far as I'm concerned.

Grahame

[bnnrcn]

I like your edit Grahame I still find the bright green foliage in the FG a bit distracting and if it was my image I would darken the very bright green parts to look like the rest of the foliage. But I don't know if the scene would look too far from what you saw when you shot it

[PaulRJennings]

Hello Grahame......I reworked #1 a bit. Turned down exposure and contrast a tad. White balance...temp to the right , tint..... a bit to the left. Brought up the shadows to show the foreground better. Increased the Red, orange, green aqua and blue bands. Toned down the yellow a tad. Increased the black point and lowered the white point.

[Stagecoach]

Hello Grahame......I reworked #1 a bit. Turned down exposure and contrast a tad. White balance...temp to the right , tint..... a bit to the left. Brought up the shadows to show the foreground better. Increased the Red, orange, green aqua and blue bands. Toned down the yellow a tad. Increased the black point and lowered the white point.

Hi Paul,

Whilst your edit shows another version of what can be done with this image, for me it has pushed it too far from reality and whilst I'm not adverse to enhancement, with these images I'm attempting to retain some of that early morning haze and softness of the entire scene.

[FootLoose]

Good job toning down the foreground, Grahame. I have been sitting here looking at the new edit at the largest size in lytebox for 10 mins exploring the scenery. With the previous version I kept returning to the bright foreground.

The image seems to have picked up a slight magenta hue, now - in the mountains. Is that intentional?

[Stagecoach]

Good job toning down the foreground, Grahame. I have been sitting here looking at the new edit at the largest size in lytebox for 10 mins exploring the scenery. With the previous version I kept returning to the bright foreground.

The image seems to have picked up a slight magenta hue, now - in the mountains. Is that intentional?

Greg, the slight magenta hue was not intentional and I now see, whilst removing it, that it had also affected the clouds. I'm certainly learning how minor tweaks can have an impact on these.

For info, I toned down the bright very close foreground leaves by simply using a Hue/Saturation layer with gradient mask and reducing the yellows.

Thanks for the help with this one.

[Stagecoach]

Here's a good version that Christina worked on and sent me today that I would like to share. It's not too different from the original posted but has enhanced the mist which to me is very much what the scene was about and so evident whilst stood there in the wet grass and mud with the tripod dripping with water



As with all my projects venturing into new areas I like to experiment with new practices and try and learn from the results obtained with the hope that these will assist in the future so here's a few learning points from this one;

BRACKETING

I'm usually happy working fully in manual but on this occasion I decided to bracket all shots. Knowing that speed is important at this time of the day and working in very low light I used the following method.

The camera was set for auto bracketing at -2 -1 0 + 1 +2 giving 5 exposures and in continuous low speed mode. The maximum number of frames in continuous mode was set to 5 so all I had to do was keep the remote release pressed for the duration of the burst and no confusion whatsoever.

COMPOSITION

Going through the images it is very obvious that I should have spent more time taking advantage of zooming in and framing better for certain features available, typically the tree to the right in the above shot.

ASSISTANTS

This was one of the only trips I have taken a passenger along and still wondering if the inconvenience of having a handbag placed where you normally lay your tripod on the back seat, the loss of the seat where you would normally place your bits and pieces along with the expectation that you can hold a cup of hot chocolate and move the camera to re-frame is any advantage

Grahame