Gran Canyon two versions C&C please

[tbob]

I was riffling through my older images and and found this. I processed it a bit more and posted it to 500px (which I am trying out for the past three days) Did alright in terms of likes etc. But I noticed the top images on the site were processed far more than I ever have , or felt comfortable with, in the past. To me the result is noisy and over sharpened. But much brighter, warmer and more saturated. Plus I really pushed the contrast. When I posted it to 500px it did massively better than the first version.

I would appreciate any comments. I value the opinions of others on this site. I know that likes on a site may not be the best way of assessing the merits of an image; but it is at least a measure of the popular appeal. I wonder if I need to push my processing a bit more. All part of the craft of photography. Still on the learning curve I guess.

[Nicks Pics]

Just to say, I think this is a pretty professional-looking photo of the grand Canyon. I'm not generally a fan of over-processing, but often contrast etc. needs to be enhanced to bring things to their more life-like look. I can't tell which is more processed, I assume the second, which I do like a bit better.

[Mike Buckley]

I also prefer the second one by a wide margin.

[DanK]

I prefer the second because so much more of the interesting detail is apparent. However, I think I know what you are writing about. I find that landscapes that are overprocessed, in particular, those that are oversaturated, often get very positive reactions on many websites. Some of them are really garish.

[ashcroft]

It's a very attractive scene of some spectacular hills. But there seems to be a mismatch to me between the bottom-left corner snowy area, which is very cool, and the rest of the shot which is extremely warm. They seem to clash with one another, as if that snowy area ought to be free of snow and the same WB colour as the rest of the shot. Does that make sense?

[mknittle]

Trevor, I think the second one really looks much better.

[Mark von Kanel]

Interesting Trevor! if you look at them in light box and scroll between them then the second is a clear winner, it almost looks like the sun is rising...

[IzzieK]

I am with Mark here. +1 to his comment...I saw the same thing but this early bird took the best seed. Only one thing I noticed though...what?! no old barns in the Grand Canyon?!

[Downrigger]

These are very, very nice Trevor... very creative takes on an oft shot spot. Just to muddy the waters I must tell you that I prefer the first, and by a fair margin. One thing I love in both is the blue shadowing on the snow contrasted with the warm hues of the rock in the warm light of sunrise.

Here's what strikes me (and perhaps I am alone in this): In the second, the blowout in the upper left is a tad overmuch, and the reds in the near rampart and on the ridge edges of the far ones are too saturated and tinted towards fuscia (to me a bit garish). The sense of scale and interactions with light and rock are so lovely here that I feel the treatment should be more "true" and has no need to be "pushed" as much as in your second version. I can see you wanted to lift the hint of muddiness in the first a little bit - perhaps you would like a version half way between the two you have provided?

[Shadowman]

Very nice, looks like four seasons in one shot. I like the second image because of the warmth conveyed in the foreground rock formation.

[tbob]

Just to say, I think this is a pretty professional-looking photo of the grand Canyon. I'm not generally a fan of over-processing, but often contrast etc. needs to be enhanced to bring things to their more life-like look. I can't tell which is more processed, I assume the second, which I do like a bit better.

The second is more processed, the first is more true to life as it was quite dark in canyon.

[tbob]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i suspect what you are seeing is the snow in the lower left in deep shadow and all the rest of the snow is lit by the rays of the setting sun. I actually warmed the snow in lower left a lot to even get it this blue, it was originally dark blue.

[tbob]

Interesting Trevor! if you look at them in light box and scroll between them then the second is a clear winner, it almost looks like the sun is rising...

Close Mark, you are only out by 12 hours. The sun is actually setting. I admit it is weird to see the sunlight coming in from the right with a setting sun (for us Northerners) but this is in winter, so the sun is in the southwest, and the clouds are only allowing the sunlight beams to come in from that direction.

[tbob]

I am with Mark here. +1 to his comment...I saw the same thing but this early bird took the best seed. Only one thing I noticed though...what?! no old barns in the Grand Canyon?!

I think there is one just over the horizon. For this type of shot, I pretend the rock is old weathered wood and that seem to suffice to get the technique down pat.

[tbob]

These are very, very nice Trevor... very creative takes on an oft shot spot. Just to muddy the waters I must tell you that I prefer the first, and by a fair margin. One thing I love in both is the blue shadowing on the snow contrasted with the warm hues of the rock in the warm light of sunrise.

Here's what strikes me (and perhaps I am alone in this): In the second, the blowout in the upper left is a tad overmuch, and the reds in the near rampart and on the ridge edges of the far ones are too saturated and tinted towards fuscia (to me a bit garish). The sense of scale and interactions with light and rock are so lovely here that I feel the treatment should be more "true" and has no need to be "pushed" as much as in your second version. I can see you wanted to lift the hint of muddiness in the first a little bit - perhaps you would like a version half way between the two you have provided?

The blowout is beyond my control. I shot this in JPEG (before I learned better) and with a Nikon D40. Added to this is the wild dynamic range; canyon in deep shadow and the bright sun . This was the best compromise for exposure to get any rock detail in the canyon and not have all the clouds in the upper left completely burnt out. The reason it is so noisy when processed is I had to haul a lot of sketchy data out of the shadows.

[Downrigger]

The blowout is beyond my control. I shot this in JPEG (before I learned better) and with a Nikon D40. Added to this is the wild dynamic range; canyon in deep shadow and the bright sun . This was the best compromise for exposure to get any rock detail in the canyon and not have all the clouds in the upper left completely burnt out. The reason it is so noisy when processed is I had to haul a lot of sketchy data out of the shadows.

Well, I'll say it again, they're very very nice. Some degree of blowout in appropriate portions of a landscape (sun, sparkling dew, etc.) can seem OK to me, but the degree of it in the first is a little less overwhelming than in the second.

[pnodrog]

I like the shot but explaining the approach I would take got a little complicated so I have been audacious enough to do a quick edit which when I see it beside your shots I will possibly no longer like it...

I have burned in the mid ground very slightly with it set to shadows to increase the contrast slightly, toned down the left hand sky and done a small colour adjustment to the foreground snow. May or may not be an improvement but at least illustrates another variation.

[NorthernFocus]

Overall I have to go with the reworked version. Much more detail visible and more dynamic colors. I do like the sky better in the first one. You did good. The old D40 was actually a pretty nice little camera. It had as good or better noise performance than the D300. I just don't like those tiny bodies. We had one for a while when my bride expressed a brief interest in learning photography.

[tbob]

Well, I'll say it again, they're very very nice. Some degree of blowout in appropriate portions of a landscape (sun, sparkling dew, etc.) can seem OK to me, but the degree of it in the first is a little less overwhelming than in the second.

Mark didn't mean to sound terse. That is what comes of trying to get my thoughts down while fending off people at work (who want me to do my job and get into surgery before the patient dies, I will need to speak to them about priorities).

I see your point about the sky, I was just whining. I may have to revisit this as your points are valid. This is a continual problem; losing my way when processing and not having a fixed endpoint. I see now that I needed to work on the sky in upper left to get some of the cloud detail back.

I will look at this at home and reassess the red rock.

[tbob]

Overall I have to go with the reworked version. Much more detail visible and more dynamic colors. I do like the sky better in the first one. You did good. The old D40 was actually a pretty nice little camera. It had as good or better noise performance than the D300. I just don't like those tiny bodies. We had one for a while when my bride expressed a brief interest in learning photography.

I liked the camera and should not speak poorly of the dead (knocked it over with a telephoto on and ripped the entire lens connector ring out of the body; no hope of repair). On the bright side that made the purchase of my D700 a necessity with no agonizing over the decision. I stressed the necessity part to my spouse, avoiding the fact of less expensive options. I have learned the truth is a precious thing and must be used sparingly.