Before Dawn shots: Processing Question

[tbob]

I am doing a lot of predawn and after sunset shots recently. I like the light, however I have to do a lot of recovery of shadows. My question is an aesthetic one.

I do not want to make the foreground artificially bright Just wondering if I am hitting the correct spot here. The images are still a bit dark; it is still officially night really. Opinions welcome, as always.

[pnodrog]

The first one looks just about perfect to me. In the next the foreground seems a bit bright but neither look overly artificial. However I far prefer the first.

[skitterbug]

Hi Trevor - I don't know much about the whys and whats of capturing evening/morning shots but I do know what I like seeing. The first image is a keeper. I really like the scene and the way the lighting works in it.

In the second image, I enjoy seeing the moon above the dark sky but I don't care for the clouds coming right against the edge of the field. I keep looking for the mountain line, or tree line or something that adds a bit of definition between the fields and the sky.

Is it cold there? Both images definitely convey cold weather! <grin>

[tbob]

The first one looks just about perfect to me. In the next the foreground seems a bit bright but neither look overly artificial. However I far prefer the first.

Thanks Paul
They were shot the same morning, the second a half hour later when the sun was almost above the horizon, so quite a bit more light. Plus the first was shot looking east so I had to really underexpose the foreground to keep the colours on the horizon. I am glad you like this one more, because it is the one I was more worried about being too dark.

[tbob]

Hi Trevor - I don't know much about the whys and whats of capturing evening/morning shots but I do know what I like seeing. The first image is a keeper. I really like the scene and the way the lighting works in it.

In the second image, I enjoy seeing the moon above the dark sky but I don't care for the clouds coming right against the edge of the field. I keep looking for the mountain line, or tree line or something that adds a bit of definition between the fields and the sky.

Is it cold there? Both images definitely convey cold weather! <grin>

Not that cold, actually by my standards not too bad, minus 2 C.

Sorry I cannot do anything about the sharp delineation of the horizon, the closest mountains are a 100 km west.
Anyway, all mountains do is block the horizon and light; quite useless lumps of rock in my opinion. Give me a nice 20 km line of sight any day

[Shadowman]

With lowlight photography there's always a trade-off between realism and aesthetics, I often find myself torn between the two, do I capture, edit, and present a lowlight image exactly as I see it or do I push the boundaries of art and add detailed shadows and pinpoint lights? I tend to combine the two when possible and when I'm not limited by some constraints that wouldn't allow me to utilize fully available tools within a software package. Regarding your image, I would attempt to add bits of light progressing more intensely from the background to the foreground, if you like the look then so be it, if you feel you can't accept what you've created then start over, at least with the editing.

[JBW]

Not that cold, actually by my standards not too bad, minus 2 C.

Sorry I cannot do anything about the sharp delineation of the horizon, the closest mountains are a 100 km west.
Anyway, all mountains do is block the horizon and light; quite useless lumps of rock in my opinion. Give me a nice 20 km line of sight any day

Spoken like a true high plains drifter. I go with the consensus number 1 is very good.

[billtils]

Like them both as they are. And I'm with those who prefer the first - it makes better use of the light (such as it is).

[Manfred M]

As things stand, I find the first image to be the stronger of the two and that has more to do with how there are lots of areas of light and shadow in the snow that gives the foreground some more interesting textures that are not present in the second image.

With the second shot, I find that the foreground seems to be too bright for the light conditions and would be tempted to leave the sky as it is and pull down the mid-tones on the land.

[tbob]

This has been very helpful. Reading between the lines, and Manfred's direct analysis, probably best to go more subtle than overt. I initially had a version closer to Manfred's but it seemed a bit dingy to me. Probably will aim for something between mine and Manfred's

[Manfred M]

Manfred's but it seemed a bit dingy to me.

Dingy is due to the compressed tonal range. Open up the global contrast by moving the white point to the left to fix that, if that is the direction you want to go. The dark clouds and flat light can imply dingy.