I visited the most iconic mountain of Iceland. (in real life I excepted a lot more of it and was a disappointing scenery) For the classic view of the mountain I wanted to take the image. Sunset was terrible. No awesome colors and a bit to cloudy...
This was the only evening here (also no northern lights at night) so I shot this image just after sunset. Everything was actually wrong about it.
In post I tried to give it that little extra that wasn't there...
My question to the community: Is it too much?
When the weather is cloudy, then I approach with variations of "moody" softer processing (with two-tone or even monochromatic approaches to color grading), which certainly means less contrast, which is not the case with your editing. Anyway nice capture!
interesting comment! thanks! I'll should have a look at that someday! :)
I think the highest compliment I can give (other than the fact that I love the photo) is that I cannot see any of your editing. If you've massaged this image, it was in a completely natural way. Good job!
I agree! No 'too much' here in my opinion. But A LOT of beautiful.
I don't know how much you and Phillip are experienced in landscape photography as well as processing, but this photo has problems with excessive contrast seen in blown out highlights in the bright clouds and without details in the dark partitions in the lower part of the photo around the waterfall. There is also a mild halo effect around the edges of the mountain, which indicates an inadequate processing.
I was in the same place in similar weather conditions and I know what's natural. I went down to right some fifty meters down and decided for this photo.
I am out of the closet no experience in landscape! Just know what I like but I am eager to learn. I will look at the closer and think about what you've said.
I don't know that I'd call it "excessive" contrast. And the halo around the mountain top is mild at worst.
These two images show the actual clipped pixels in the highlights and shadows, respectively. While there is some clipping, I've seen a lot worse.
Thanks for all the comments... Like I said... I was giving it a mood and played around a bit to find a kind of taste I liked.
It's definitely not like Radisa said a exact replica of it was. (usually I would prefer doing that!)
The main issue with these very famous spots consists in giving a new vision about them. maybe yours is just both realistic and naturalist, shows the landscape as it in reality.
you can do a lot with this actually and not have to do much to it
I agree!
nice "minimal" touch! Joseph!
For the ones who are interested.. This is the original (Levels, crop and dust (f22) fixed from the raw) no other changes made...
For optimum sharpness and depth of field common range in landscape photography is from f/8 to f/11. Any higher numbers ad you will start to notice diffraction effect (at f/22, it is true that your IQ as well as sharpness drops. How much it depends and on the quality of the lens)
If you need longer exposures it is always better to use ND filters.
I 100% agree... but to get the full scene I needed my Samyang 14mm. My ND filters don't fit that lens... so I went creative with my F-Stop.. :)