Here are three different versions of the same image that illustrate some of the myriad options we have as digital artists that were vastly more difficult with film. whether this is good or bad is for you to decide. #1 is more or less what the sky actually looked like with the saturation, sharpness, and clarity boosted a bit to compensate for Nikon's slight overexposure. #2 shows the changes Photoshop's automatic color and exposure setting made. #3 is that image as Photoshop changed it to B&W. I haven't decided what I'm finally going to do with this.
There are some pretty wild patterns in those clouds! Wouldn't want to fly through those bits. I find the second two versions preferable, Andrew. The colour in the first is too strong, uniform & unnatural to my eye.
The PS "automatic" version surprises me because the rich colours look attractive, reminding me of an oil painting - actually, of Australian surrealist James Gleeson's later paintings, although with less of his disturbing, slightly horrific vibe.
The mono is similarly appealing.
Thanks for the feedback. Greatly appreciated. I'll check out Gleeson.
#1 was my attempt to be realistic while retaining the cloud's texture and form, Upon further reflection, the color is too blue. I use a DatacolorSpyder5 to calibrate my monitor, but I'm having issues that I think come from the very different room lighting during the day (mostly sunlight through the window) and night (artificial.) (I know, it's a poor worker who blames his tools!) #2 shows no attempt at realism, and the greens and magentas surprised me. The B&W #3 seems the most promising.
You're not blaming your tools, Andrew. I use a Spyder as well. The tricky thing in setting it up to calibrate one's set-up is having representative ambient lighting at the time. In reality this will vary depending on time of day, weather, blinds open/closed, etc.
I think the unrealistic aspect of #2 makes it like an abstract painting, and so much the better. I've found that even Kodachrome images of (particularly sunlit) cloud could contain greens and bronzes (not due to colour shifts in the film). Digital processing can enhance these subtle hues, which is what may be happening here. I like cloud images too, and pushing contrast and steep Curve adjustments can cause susprising colours to become evident.
Hi Andrew, thanks for posting. I think each has it's own attractions and it is more down to the individual than the quality of the image.
TBH I find the texture of all of these to be unnatural - I fear the clarity/sharpness may have ben push to far unless that is the dramatic look you were seeking.
Also, there are pretty evident dust spots visible in the top of all the images - you may want to clean these up. I'm guessing you shot at f16 or smaller *which tends to accentuate and why many try to stick to something lower).
As for preference I actually prefer #1 for its calmness, but #2 definitely has compelling drama that demands attention.
There is definitely no reason why you cannot present in multiple forms, you don't need to decide on a single result.
Each is spectacular, Andrew.
I really like the second, it has a Gothic character, and I feel it would make a fantastic sky in a piece of composite art; maybe like a church, with flying buttresses and gargoyles.