Which do you prefer

[Winston1013]

Two versions of the same shot from a recent ice storm. It is an HDR shot and the settings are the same on both or them. I added a cooling blue filter to the second one.

There is a debate in my house as to which one is better. A matter of personal preference, I think. Which do you prefer?

Thanks for looking. Always trying to improve so C&C is always desired.

Technical Details:

98 mm at f/8 for 1/320 (bracketed). ISO 640

ice storm 2017_1 by Ian Veitzer, on Flickr

ice storm 2017_3 by Ian Veitzer, on Flickr

[Shadowman]

Prefer the color version although there appears to be a purple tint at bottom. Looks like the filter interacted with the warm colors.

[Rent]

Without any doubt, the first is my choice. The second is anything but natural. too blue
Roy

[DanK]

I agree with Roy. The second looks very unnatural. I might play with cooling the first a tiny bit, but nowhere nearly this much.

[Geoff F]

Yes, the first option looks more natural; but there is no reason to discard an artistic variation like the second image.

With the first scene, I would slightly darken the blacks to give a fraction more contrast.

[sachtjen]

One of my photography books has a section on "Creative White Balance" and the example in the book is a man climbing a frozen waterfall. With proper white balance the ice is white. With "Creative" white balance the image is rendered with a definite blue hue. I'm all for creative interpretation if it conveys your artistic intent.

I like them both. Each gives me a very different emotional reaction.

#1 is more natural looking and the realism of it actually makes it "feel" colder. However, it is also a very dreary scene with lots of brown. There's not much life in this cold winter scene.

#2 is more of a Disney version of cold. It's like a scene out of Frozen. I mean that in a good way. It's a good cold. I feel that there is a warm cabin and hot cocoa near by.

[ScoutR]

Hi Winston: I definitely prefer the first version. If you are inclined towards the blue tint then I think I would tone it down quite a bit.

I don't know what program you use for editing, but if you can leave the white balance as is in the first one but deepen the blues (for the sky) and the oranges and yellows to make the sky and the weeds in front provide a bit more interest/contrast I think the shot would have more drama. Oh and the black point too, as already mentioned could be tweaked a bit.

I see scenes like this a lot in my area, we usually have at least one sometimes more ice storms every year. I can picture this scene in my minds eye, but the first one is a bit dull and the second one a bit too blue. Just my 2 cents worth. I'm kind of quirky when it comes to blue snow. It was one of the first things I tried to correct when I first started taking winter photos. I did not know about overexposing for snow shots and everything was coming out blue, so now I'm kind of put off by blue snow and/or ice. That's just me though. I really like the shot.

[ccphoto]

Please accept that my edit is only shown as a possibility and perhaps a teaching moment for those of you who use photoshop for your editing. I did use one luminosity mask for a starting layer and for me, Luminosity masking techniques is a must learn for anyone expecting the highest level of editing for their work. However, that said, I could do the whole process only using the one tool I used predominately through this edit and that is the "Select by Color Range" found in the top, "Select" Menu Bar.

Whereas I found the first image initially intriguing, like others on here, I also found the image to be a bit on the flat side offering no real delineation between each layer of foliage and the sky. I did the wide midtones adjust layer to pop the trees away from the sky then in subsequent layers, I selected each layer according to a specific area, each of which are named in the Layers Box.

By selecting by color range, I was able to isolate either specific tonal ranges or by specific colors and apply a levels adjustment layer to either accent the mid range, the very dark's or very light's and as well, decrease specific opacity levels in each layer. There are numerous tutorials on youtube explaining how to use the select by color range and everyone no familiar with this tool should avail themselves the time to learn how lovely a tool it really is.

[Manfred M]

The image is already quite monochromatic, with the exception of the sky and the coloured reeds and grasses in the foreground, so going monochrome might also be a treatment you might want to consider.




By applying a blue filter to the scene in the second version, you are giving us a bit of an insight as to how you view this image. You want to look at accentuate the coolness of a winter scene, so the warm tones of the reeds and grasses in the foreground conflict with that vision. Desaturating that aspect of the image to reduce, but not eliminate, the impact of the warmer tones might be worth considering as well.



As you can probably guess, I'm not a fan of the blue version. I find the approach a bit heavy-handed. Subtlety usually is more effective.

[Cogito]

I'm with Manfred re monochrome Perhaps with a bit more contrast and clarity?

[DanK]

A very interesting thread because of the diversity of suggestions your image has elicited. Clearly, this is an image that could be taken in many different directions.

I'll suggest yet another. I don't see the warm colors at the bottom as being in conflict with the colder tones in most of the image. They could be an interesting compositional element. The image is rather flat, as Chris suggested, and there are numerous ways one could add different types of contrast. Just for discussion, here's an example. First, I increased the tonal range at both ends with a levels tool, and as that darkened the image, I moved the midpoint a bit to brighten it back up. This expanded tonal range adds contrast. Then I did a rough selection of the plants at the bottom. I warmed that area up. I then inverted the selection and cooled the rest of the image a bit. This adds a bit of color contrast. Finally, I added a little contrast with a curves tool. Not a careful edit, and perhaps a bit heavy-handed, but it illustrates yet another direction you might take.

[billtils]

Ian

You certainly provided material for discussion, with several good suggestions. Personally, I'm with those who find the blue version too much, and I like Dan's version best.

[LePetomane]

I like #1. It looks more natural and #2 is too blue.

[sachtjen]

Chris,

Thanks for sharing details on how you edited the two photos. I have not gotten into that level of editing yet to create and edit mask independent of one another.

Usually I'm more inclined to vote black-and-white than color, but in this case I think color is needed even if the end result is nearly monochromatic. I don't get the sense of frost in Manfred's edit. It looks more like an infrared (or psudo-infrared) treatment. You need some color to show the white truly is white.

Where I grew up (in Idaho) we would get inversions which would stick around for weeks and the frost would slowly build up. The first image captures that perfectly. The image is cold and flat, but I bet it was cold and flat in real-life. I'm intrigued by Dan's adjustments (if a little heavy handed) but I do imagine the weather to be a few degrees warmer looking at his vs your #1.