Hey guys! Haven't been here a while but it's nice to be back. These are two little different shots from the same morning that I also processed differently. Which type of processing do you prefer why?
I think I'm leaning to the wider shot in terms of colors because it's more natural. What would you have done differently to improve this?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Hi Ivan! I must compliment you on your compositions and your restraint in processing compared to the average on FS, which is often overdone, especially in terms of saturation, and apparently seeking drama at all costs.
So, for once, I think they could do with more extensive changes than I assume you have done. I think you are not capitalising enough on the interesting detail in the dark foreground, which looks a bit gloomy and hard to "read", especially in the second. I understand that bringing it up too much could kill the atmosphere.
As they stand, I much prefer the first, partly because of your processing, when the second looks (relatively) cold and gloomy, making me feel like putting on a warm jacket and going home, if you know what I mean! That is, it doesn't somehow create wonder and curiosity to look closely at it.
However, the first image has entirely different atmoshpere - literally: that beautiful mist wreathing the hills, and the more contrasting, slightly forbidding clouds framing that magnificent peak.
Both compositions work, but the second could do with more complex and balanced clouds as the sky seems lacking. I'd have gone in between, too, if I used a zoom. Both have "flat" lighting on the foreground, giving little depth and form to the landscape.
Here are two edits. The first image is just much better raw material.
Hey Chris! Thank you very much for your feedback. Love what you've done with both images, I definitely agree with the points made.
I did underprocess them, you are right about it. When you toggle that before and after everything you've done especially locally seems to look unnatural, but as a standalone image when I can't see the changes I much prefer your version. Showed them to my mum as well, she preferred yours too!
They do have a very different atmosphere, you are right about that. This is due to the processing in part but also the scene has changed so much. Probably just 15 minutes passed from one shot to the other. It's crazy how conditions change in the mountains.
Thanks again for taking the time to make your points, really appreciate it.
While I don't like over-processed-LOOKING images, Ivan, I do a lot of processing myself, but try to keep in natural-looking (usually). Since the processing can end up far from the appearance of the RAW, toggling before/after during processing can be alarming because of the degree of departure from where ir started. My Nikon RAW files can look very drab.
Periodically I just get a preview of the processed image fo fill the screen, not in the processing window, to evaluate it on its own. Even with this, it's quite possible to lose perspective & go too far. If that occurs, I usually save what I've done, and start all over again with fresh processing from RAW.
I've started utilizing the full-screen trick just a couple of days ago — definitely a good way to evaluate the image on its own. Thanks for the advice, Chris!
Clearly great minds think alike, Ivan! Or is it that fools never differ...?
;-)
Haha that is a good question, Chris! But I wouldn't know, I just saw somebody on YouTube do that xD
I like the images. For me, I would like more light in the valleys
Hey Rajiv! Thank you for your comment. Yeah, I do agree with you. Adding more light there will probably create more sense of depth, as Chris also noted above.
Will try to reprocess a little bit with that in mind later on!
Great images. I would love to see a zoom of the structures on the hill.