Moody Monday

[purplehaze]

Too much sky? Too lacking in punch? Other suggestions for improvement?



f/11, 1/200, 180 ISO, 22 mm (Sigma 18-35 mm lens)

[Mike Buckley]

For me, the scene is well composed. The clouds in the sky and the soft light they create indicate that the physical scene lacked punch. To create substantially more punch during post-processing would probably take the image into the realm of surrealism. If realism is what you hoped to achieve, you did an excellent job of it. If you want more punch that is realistic, return to the scene at a gorgeous sunrise or sunset.

There are some blue tones in the sky at the right half of the horizon that don't appear realistic to me. It also seems that some of the trees in that area are so much darker than other trees in the same area. All of that makes me wonder if there are some post-processing issues that need to be cleaned up.

[mugge]

Janis, I think it does lack punch. How about cropping it 10mm above the duck and give more punch to the sky. I think the sky should be shown in all its glory. That is only my opinion.
Cheers Ole

[Mike Buckley]

If you add punch to the sky, don't forget to also add it to the water if you want a sense of realism. That's because the water reflects the sky.

[Manfred M]

The clouds and the shoreline could definitely use a bit of work to bring out more texture. I would probably go very easy on the water as you don't want water to come out looking too sharp. I played a bit with Nik Collection Color Efex on it - a combination of Pro Contrast, a tiny bit of Detail Extractor and a gradient in the sky (that brought up a lot of sensor dust that had to be removed).

I'd be tempted to crop out some of the sky at the top as it is rather flat.

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Mike and Ole. Mike, I really haven't done much to this: I reduced the highlights to bring out the clouds, lifted the shadows, and added a bit of clarity. I did no local adjustments, so the variation in the trees reflects the scene. I didn't touch the saturation, so I guess we'll have to blame the blue on Capture One? Time for bed now; I will revisit it another day.

[purplehaze]

The clouds and the shoreline could definitely use a bit of work to bring out more texture. I would probably go very easy on the water as you don't want water to come out looking too sharp. I played a bit with Nik Collection Color Efex on it - a combination of Pro Contrast, a tiny bit of Detail Extractor and a gradient in the sky (that brought up a lot of sensor dust that had to be removed).

I'd be tempted to crop out some of the sky at the top as it is rather flat.

Oh my, Manfred; that is great! Thanks for the nudges. You have really captured the sky in particular. Yes, I have quite a lot of sensor dust. I try to practice good lens changing habits, but I could probably be in to the shop for a cleaning twice a year.

[Manfred M]

Yes, I have quite a lot of sensor dust.

Try running the sensor cleaning cycle 5 or 6 times. Sometimes that works amazingly well.

My camera has never been in the shop for a sensor cleaning. If things get really messy, I usually use a "rocket blower" on the sensor and that usually takes care of things without worrying about touching the sensor.

[Wavelength]

This image has a very beautiful horizon premises...those clouds, those trees...but the real master of the scenery is the rock and those two tiny birds in the island like rock....everything else is their back ground only; Even if you say it is not birds nor rock but something else, i am not going to accept that

[Shadowman]

I would crop a bit of the sky and foreground and just concentrate on the land mass. Nice effort.

[tao2]

Hi Janis,

ah think it's just the wrong time of day....

[Stagecoach]

Too much sky? Too lacking in punch? Other suggestions for improvement?

Janis, yes it's lacking in punch but it looks realistic to me. If you want to alter the crop it's difficult to do if you want to maintain the same ratio without losing points of interest.

I had a play with the intention of making the trees/rocks more prominent by adding some LCE/structure and then emphasising the light areas of the water to try and balance with the local area brightness of the sky. In addition I slightly dulled down the upper sky.

Here's an interpretation, one of many I'm sure

[ccphoto]

I am more in line with Manfred in that more punch to this scene is needed but that's the beauty of the beholder's eye; we all see what makes us go all googlely inside. In my edit, I found the rock and birds to be too distracting so I had them disappear. I also cropped both the sky and water. The sky because when I see a brighter tonal range leaving the image, I tend to go with it rather than stay inside and visit for awhile. The water I cropped using the old rule of thirds and brought the horizon line up to the bottom grid line as it is a tad more pleasing to my eye. As you will see in the second image, I saw this and wanted to emphasize that nice juxtapositional relationship...

As always, my edits tend to reflect what I see and never what you should see. It's just another idea. Edits to other's images pays homage to that photographer.

[Cogito]

Taken to extremes......

[Mike Buckley]

Tony,

How do you reconcile that the blue sky, which should be reflected in the lake, isn't being reflected in the slightest?

[Cogito]

I don't. As I said, taken to extremes. It's not my image so 30 secs pp is more than enough.....

But for another 30 secs....

[purplehaze]

Wow, you've all given me lots to think about. And Chris, you have given me a great deal of encouragement with your last remark. Nandy, I admit I am a little partial to the birds myself; perhaps there will be two versions, one with and one without. In any case, my challenge is to restore some of the mood that my processing robbed it of. Can't do anything with it now; am actually in a gym waiting to shoot headshots of the dragonboat team members I didn't catch while they were on their winter holiday.

[Mike Buckley]

Tony,

Your revised version makes a lot more sense to me because the water is now more consistent with the sky. Even so, as much as people like blue skies, that sky and its reflection in the water is inconsistent with the highly diffused quality of light in the rest of the image.

[JBW]

Too much sky? Too lacking in punch? Other suggestions for improvement?



f/11, 1/200, 180 ISO, 22 mm (Sigma 18-35 mm lens)

I went with a gradient mask for the sky, a little more structure and contrast. And a slightly lower exposure.

[rpcrowe]

I thought that I might take a try at this one...