This afternoon, as Harry and I did our daily circuit, I had one of those days when there was absolutely nothing going on. Not even another dog whose butt Harry wanted to sniff. I took only one photograph just as we were going into the house because I had carried the camera all the way into Philadelphia and back and all around the neighborhood and could not bear the idea of going in with nothing. So, I shot what appeared to be a sky that was mostly one big cloud (we were between drenchings) with very little texture.
I present the original NEF (converted to a JPEG) so you can see where this started and a color and B&W version of the very highly manipulated result. Did I overdo this? In what way? Which do you prefer: the color or B&W version. Why?
These are uncropped. I suspect I will end up cropping this somewhat but it's too late tonight to think about that.
Hi Andrew! Definitely the B&W for me! It is heavily processed, as one can see compared with the RAW, but so what? It's a plausible image, especially just before a storm, so doesn't scream "fake", even though I'd suspect it's been worked on a fair bit if I didn't know.
We photographers are quick to spot these things, but non-photographers tend not to care.
This raises the chestnut of "over"-processing. Some images do look bizarre with ham-fisted processing, but this often reflects newbies' enthusiasm at the amazing power of "post".
For me, it's the effect of the final result that counts. This image shows me nature's power and majesty, those roiling masses having such energy! It could be a painting.
The blue version is pretty, but the strong colour doesn't really add much for me.
Hi Andrew. Colour version minus the shadow tones left bottom corner. Somehow blue colour goes well with the contrast in this frame. Though it needs some time investment to enhance. cheers.
Hi Andrew, each has merits in their own right and may appeal differently throughout the community.
I agree with Chris in that the image has ben harshly processed, but whether too much or not depends on what you were after. If you see these as a striking abstract then I feel you have achieved that goal, both the blue and the B&W work for me in tat respect.
I've argued with this image quite a bit and still have to be convinced as to the proper degree of processing. This version is less harsh. I'm not certain this is an improvement. My wife likes this better, but she's a writer so what does she know?
Blue gets my vote. For me, this version is like a harbinger of sorts from ancient lore / mythos. Really cool.
The color version reminds me a tad of one I did in the past. I'm definitely drawn more towards the color than either of the other two, although I will echo Vijay's suggestion of removing the shadow from the bottom left.
I hate to leave a link to mine like this, but I can't find the original file at the moment. I'll upload the original if I come across it in the near future.
https://gurushots.com/photo/02418133b4662ea2993af5f36c822e7b
I would say this is digital art and no longer a photograph to me with such a high level of manipulation. That in no way is meant to devalue it as art. It is essentially a monochrome image and as I tend to be a traditionalist I lean to B&W, for a photograph, but again I'm not really looking at this as a photograph. As a piece of art I prefer the blue version, however I want it all blue. To me the magenta blotches look like artifact. So, I would go with the B&W version and add the blue tint. How's that for a political answer?