after the sunset

[Nicola]

I'd like to know your c&c...I'm processing more than a version, but this is the one that sounds to me better, at the moment...
thank you

Nicola

[Colin Southern]

Here's an alternative approach that might contain some (good or bad) food for thought ...

[pasusan]

I like the color one best, but then I'm partial to blues. I also think the color one shows more depth in the mountains. Very nice - I'm looking forward to your other versions.

[AB26]

Stunning, Nicola, stunning. What filter did you use?
There might be a bit of noise from high ISO - not distracting. Sorry, that is pixel peeping.

[Geoff F]

I prefer Colin's edit which has a little more visible clarity and fine detail.

The blueness in the original just doesn't seem right to me; but I suppose I am comparing it to UK light conditions.

[Colin Southern]

I prefer Colin's edit which has a little more visible clarity and fine detail.

The blueness in the original just doesn't seem right to me; but I suppose I am comparing it to UK light conditions.

To my eye the colours of the original were just too over-powering to the point of being distracting.

[Nicola]

Thank you very much to all of you guys,
your inputs are really helpful!

Colin, yes, the B&W can be an altrenative, I do like the white border(frame?) too, thanks also to the square format it seems to me to see a Donald's picture
apart from joking, I already know that I must add some kind of frame on pictures, I'm just too lazy to start choosing the one I like most.
Thank you Susan and Andre, your appreciations are important for me.
Andre Noise is clearly visible, it's not pixel peeping and it's not coming from high ISO, exif says ISO-100!
Noise comes from underexposure (that's even worst than high iso) of the blue area and in this my first quick editing I didn't use noise reduction and sharpening at all.
I didn't use any filter, if you are thinking at the star-looking lights, this effect comes from f-16 setting. As far as I can imagine. It surprized me too.

Geoff, I have some doubts on the blue too. I played a bit on it in lightroom, perhaps too much. Anyway, I'd say that this is a uncommon view: in this kind of ppicture the camera records much more light that the human eye can, beacause of the long exposure. So the night sky is blue, not black and the water is smoke-like... I know it is un-natural...
I must also add that, probably, I must try a different WB. the tungsten light aren't enough yellow. It will impact on blue too.
A bit of sharpening as Colin did is due.

thanks again to all, stay tuned if you please, to see how I'll apply your feedbacks

( sorry for the bad english..)

[GrahamH]

Hi Nicola,
I like the two versions for different reasons. Love the blue of twilight shots, but this one does seem a little strong, but not too much stronger. BW is classic of course, and the lines are so much stronger. Well done, love it.
Graham

[Nicola]

Hi,
can this be a way?
thanks

[Colin Southern]

PS it's actually sepia, not B&W

[Geoff F]

The re edited version looks more 'natural' to me, Nicola.