considering I'm still working on trying to figure out the MW setup i would have to say its the foreground. do your research on MW photography and compare. I've seen several with lighting effects that produce different colors around the seen, even spotlights directed upward you have a lot of dead space in the pitch black areas and an almost stark gray rock face i think if there was other lighting or distance colors it would help you out a ton
I was hoping to get the MW more horizontal across the image but alas life and weather conspired to prevent that. I really like the way the stars cane out and have several with simple silhouette foregrounds but the only one getting positive feedback is one i took of myself with a headlamp looking up. Thank you for the feedback!
1
0
Deleted Account
I don't do these type of shots but I would have thought I would be concentrating on the sky rather than the foreground.You do probably need to have some terrain in many of these shots to give some perspective but not in closeup like this one.
I'd agree with Joseph, it's the foreground elements, the sky is quite nice. The foreground is too close to the camera and too busy IMO. The rocks have so much detail they distract from the details of the sky and compete for attention. The other elements of tree and mountains seem out of place along side the lit up rocks. This might have worked better if it only used silhouettes of say the trees, instead of all the various fore ground elements. Or had a simpler rock structure further out from the POV so the details didn't clash with the sky so much.
Adding to what others have said, in the MW shoots the foreground needs to be really interesting with details or limited to shapes. Here's the mixture of both that doesn't quite work. And a thing no one mentions often: post-processing is 50% of the shot.
Thanks, Maybe that is why the headlamp one is better received. there is a good deal of post processing here to keep the brightness at the horizon and the top of the frame the same. do you have suggestions for what I could have done better with the post processing?
0
0
Deleted Account
I wouldn't worry about the lack of enthusiasm - all types of photography is a challenge and you do it, I presume, for the pleasure to doing it. Nothing to me, beats mw photography. Having said that, I would change the color balance to more blue for the sky. I would tone down the white rock, as my eye is drawn more to that than the mw. In shooting, if you are going to light paint, do so from the side and light less. Use a composition like you would in daylight.
considering I'm still working on trying to figure out the MW setup i would have to say its the foreground. do your research on MW photography and compare. I've seen several with lighting effects that produce different colors around the seen, even spotlights directed upward you have a lot of dead space in the pitch black areas and an almost stark gray rock face i think if there was other lighting or distance colors it would help you out a ton
I was hoping to get the MW more horizontal across the image but alas life and weather conspired to prevent that. I really like the way the stars cane out and have several with simple silhouette foregrounds but the only one getting positive feedback is one i took of myself with a headlamp looking up. Thank you for the feedback!
I don't do these type of shots but I would have thought I would be concentrating on the sky rather than the foreground.You do probably need to have some terrain in many of these shots to give some perspective but not in closeup like this one.
I'd agree with Joseph, it's the foreground elements, the sky is quite nice. The foreground is too close to the camera and too busy IMO. The rocks have so much detail they distract from the details of the sky and compete for attention. The other elements of tree and mountains seem out of place along side the lit up rocks. This might have worked better if it only used silhouettes of say the trees, instead of all the various fore ground elements. Or had a simpler rock structure further out from the POV so the details didn't clash with the sky so much.
Adding to what others have said, in the MW shoots the foreground needs to be really interesting with details or limited to shapes. Here's the mixture of both that doesn't quite work. And a thing no one mentions often: post-processing is 50% of the shot.
Thanks, Maybe that is why the headlamp one is better received. there is a good deal of post processing here to keep the brightness at the horizon and the top of the frame the same. do you have suggestions for what I could have done better with the post processing?
I wouldn't worry about the lack of enthusiasm - all types of photography is a challenge and you do it, I presume, for the pleasure to doing it. Nothing to me, beats mw photography. Having said that, I would change the color balance to more blue for the sky. I would tone down the white rock, as my eye is drawn more to that than the mw. In shooting, if you are going to light paint, do so from the side and light less. Use a composition like you would in daylight.