Fog Approaching from the East - B&W

[Sam W]

An attempt to make an interesting B&W landscape photo. View is SSE toward Lexington, VA from Rockbridge, VA. All C&C welcome. Thanks for viewing. - Sam

[Shadowman]

Nice effort.

[flashback]

Sam, this is a great shot, especially in Lightbox, full size. I would not be at all surprised to see this image sold as a large poster celebrating whatever particular town is most prominent. My one suggestion would be to reduce the sky about half of what you have (from top of image to top of highest BG mountain, half of that sky). Granted it's an odd size but to me it makes it a really spectacular image...for what it's worth.

[Sam W]

Sam, this is a great shot, especially in Lightbox, full size. I would not be at all surprised to see this image sold as a large poster celebrating whatever particular town is most prominent. My one suggestion would be to reduce the sky about half of what you have (from top of image to top of highest BG mountain, half of that sky). Granted it's an odd size but to me it makes it a really spectacular image...for what it's worth.

Thanks Jack! I gave it a try (EDIT #1):

[flashback]

That's what I was thinking. It's a great shot and you should be very pleased with it in any variation. And I think it works really well in B&W.

[Sam W]

That's what I was thinking. It's a great shot and you should be very pleased with it in any variation. And I think it works really well in B&W.

Thanks for your help Jack and complements. I was wondering how much sky to leave in. Best regards - Sam

[selig1656]

The adjusted pic is simply out standing , a true piece of art , the B/W is definitely the way to get the most of this landcsape.

[pnodrog]

It is a glorious shot. By scrolling it down on my monitor I was able to crop out some of the white fog at the bottom of the image. It works better for me with just a slither of it showing. The full height seems to drag my away eyes away from the rest of the scene.

I think you can happily leave a bit more sky in than you have in your cropped version, especially if you trim a bit off the bottom.

[Wavelength]

Excellent images; i like it both the the ways; when it was trimmed it became more panoramic; since bottom part is very busy an open space above gives a relaxed viewing too; that is why i like both

[Sam W]

The adjusted pic is simply out standing , a true piece of art , the B/W is definitely the way to get the most of this landcsape.

Thank you Raymond. The fact you think this photo is a "true piece of art" is an early Christmas gift. Merry Christmas. Sam

[Sam W]

It is a glorious shot. By scrolling it down on my monitor I was able to crop out some of the white fog at the bottom of the image. It works better for me with just a slither of it showing. The full height seems to drag my away eyes away from the rest of the scene.

I think you can happily leave a bit more sky in than you have in your cropped version, especially if you trim a bit off the bottom.

Thank you so much Paul. From someone coming from beautiful NZ I must have done good. I appreciate your suggestions and tried to reflect them in the edit below. I thought it important to try to keep a bit of the lower fog stretching across the entire photo. So I may have not trimmed that as much as you suggested. I did add a bit more sky back. Best regards -Sam

Edit #2:

[Sam W]

Excellent images; i like it both the the ways; when it was trimmed it became more panoramic; since bottom part is very busy an open space above gives a relaxed viewing too; that is why i like both

Thank you Nandakumar. Its great to know there is a range of latitude I can select and still achieve a good result. Best regards - Sam

[Dave Humphries]

I appreciate your suggestions and tried to reflect them in the edit below. I thought it important to try to keep a bit of the lower fog stretching across the entire photo. So I may have not trimmed that as much as you suggested. I did add a bit more sky back.

Hi Sam,

Definitely prefer the trimmed versions, but I'm torn between the 2nd and 3rd, therefore - if mine, I think I might have tried removing just half the white stuff across the bottom and also, I would not have added in any back in at the top, there's really nothing up there of interest, so (in my hands) it would end up even more of a panorama.


If I may be really picky (I'm allowed since it is such a stunning shot and I just want it to be as perfect as possible) I think the sharpening in the 2nd and 3rd is slightly 'too much' (radius and amount).

While that in the first did need some enhancing, just not as much - because now I can see little white halos around the trees, etc. in the later versions.

Hope those thoughts help, Dave

[flashback]

This is the best part of CiC, where a great shot becomes a group project to make that shot even more gooder! To that end, I offer a few more thoughts:
Keep the bottom as in edit 3, but the top as in edit 2. In doing so you end up with these really great horizontal bands dividing the image into thirds. This does two things, makes the image visually harmonious and, in its adherence to the "Rules Of Thirds" appeases the enforcers of said "Rules Of Thirds"! (The fussy squad can be quite particular about these things ;-))
Final thought, at the bottom of the image (#3) there is a very straight line where the fog ends, I'm guessing it's some kind of man made structure? But wondering if it would look better if it were smudged out a bit? In any case I think the last thing you should be doing is getting this image printed up large and hang it in your living room.

[Mike Buckley]

You've already got lots of discussion going on about the framing, so I'll bring your attention to the fog (low-lying clouds) and the haze. For me, the haze detracts from the fog by reducing the contrast and the detail. If you minimize or eliminate the haze, I'm confident your photo will be even better than it already is.

[Sam W]

Hi Sam,

Definitely prefer the trimmed versions, but I'm torn between the 2nd and 3rd, therefore - if mine, I think I might have tried removing just half the white stuff across the bottom and also, I would not have added in any back in at the top, there's really nothing up there of interest, so (in my hands) it would end up even more of a panorama.


If I may be really picky (I'm allowed since it is such a stunning shot and I just want it to be as perfect as possible) I think the sharpening in the 2nd and 3rd is slightly 'too much' (radius and amount).

While that in the first did need some enhancing, just not as much - because now I can see little white halos around the trees, etc. in the later versions.

Hope those thoughts help, Dave

Hi Dave,

I do appreciate your thoughts and I want you and everyone to be very picky with perfection being the goal. On the edit below I placed some of the lower horizontal band back in but I kept the sky mostly the way (amount) it was. When I spent time reviewing Donald's B & W gallery I notice he liked "big sky" too. I know there is nothing of there of visual interest but my gut says it needed to stay.

I am so impressed that you can see the differences in sharpening I did between edits. I hardly can but it was a conscience decision. Could it be I have a 10 year old monitor?...or you got eyes of a hawk (both probably). Editing in LR I applied low output sharpening for the original and then high for the second two. On Edit 3 below I chose middle of the ground (standard output sharpening) and reduced the current radius by 20%.

Thanks again, you probably prefer color photos so I do appreciate your time. Best regards - Sam

Edit #3:

[Sam W]

This is the best part of CiC, where a great shot becomes a group project to make that shot even more gooder! To that end, I offer a few more thoughts:
Keep the bottom as in edit 3, but the top as in edit 2. In doing so you end up with these really great horizontal bands dividing the image into thirds. This does two things, makes the image visually harmonious and, in its adherence to the "Rules Of Thirds" appeases the enforcers of said "Rules Of Thirds"! (The fussy squad can be quite particular about these things ;-))
Final thought, at the bottom of the image (#3) there is a very straight line where the fog ends, I'm guessing it's some kind of man made structure? But wondering if it would look better if it were smudged out a bit? In any case I think the last thing you should be doing is getting this image printed up large and hang it in your living room.

Hi Jack,

I appreciate your thoughts and I really like the CIC team effort. As some of the suggestions contradict others I've tried to apply what I can. In the Edit #3 I tried to keep an eye on "the rule of thirds" that you mentioned and also apply some of Dave and your suggest changes. I also smudged out one area but I am not sure it is the one you are noticing. I'm glad you think this is sufficient quality to print. I might just do that. Best regards - Sam

[pnodrog]

Before you print you should soften the hard edge in the fog at the lower left of the photograph. It may have been the result of an abrupt selection on an adjustment layer and if the layer has a mask you can just soften the edge of the mask. It maybe where the smudge was recommended.

Ooops on closer inspection I see it is the contour of the land - probably looks fine at full size. Photographic edits and sharpening are very dependent on final viewing size. May pay to soften the edge anyway it will be in keeping with the fog.

[Sam W]

You've already got lots of discussion going on about the framing, so I'll bring your attention to the fog (low-lying clouds) and the haze. For me, the haze detracts from the fog by reducing the contrast and the detail. If you minimize or eliminate the haze, I'm confident your photo will be even better than it already is.

Hi Mike,

A couple days ago I anticipated your comment about the need for more contrast. So I worked on that aspect for some time and when I was finished I felt the added contrast took away something. I'm not experienced enough to articulate exactly what that was. Maybe it is realism (which I have already dealt a blow). Well, I started to post both versions to see what comments might come back but in the end I chose not to...so I only posted the one I liked best. The below (Alternative #1) is where I left off when I was headed in the direction of increasing contrast. Is this more in mind with what you were thinking? BTW - thanks a bunch for your valued comments. Best regards - Sam

Alternative #1:

[Mike Buckley]

I was thinking more along the lines of the original and the first three edits but with the haze removed. Let me know whether your post-processing software has a Dehaze tool that can be applied selectively.