Any good? How much ND filter is enough?

[armand]

I wanted to get an unbiased opinion about a couple of shots made in the spring with my old Nikon D50.

The one in the canyon was not shot in the best moment of the day but I had no chance to come back so I had to work with what I had. Shot on tripod, no ND available at that time. I only used the ND in LR 3beta (initially) and I wanted to see if you think it's too much or any way I can improve it. Also comments about the composition would be helpful.

For the other photo, I was curios if you find it appealing, composition and technically. Printed it looks good (from distance at least   and to non-photographers).

Thanks

[armand]

And a slightly more saturated version

PS. pictures exported from LR3

[jdemott]

I like the textures and shapes in the El Paso image, so I tried to enhance the experience of those elements of the image by increasing contrast both locally and globally.  The light that you had to work with was pretty flat and harsh, so I pushed the contrast a bit to try to bring out some texture and the suggestion of shapes in the foreground that would be picked up by the repeated round shapes of the trees in the distance.  I also like the simple color scheme in the photo and I just tried to give the color a bit more depth.  You might think the color and contrast don't look like what you saw, but since I wasn't there I didn't feel constrained.  I also tried to level the "horizon" where the grass ends in the background--whether that is true level I have no idea, but to me it makes more sense visually and it let me crop in a way that eliminated most of the distracting little wedge of sky in the upper left (I should have cropped the rest of it).  Compositionally, if I were to try to change something, I think I would hope for a higher camera angle that would let me see the three shrubs in the foreground more as a diagonal line leading into the frame from the lower left.  And I would hope for more interesting light that would give a bit more dimension to the scene and might make it easier to avoid the blown out sky.  I added a bit of vignetting to try to bring the focus into the center of the frame and away from the bright sky.

I haven't figured out how to embed an uploaded image in this new forum software so I think my modifications may just show up as an attachment.

[armand]

Thanks for the feedback. The photo was actually level although I see your point. It was a cloudy day, with no breaks in the sky (probably rare for that area). I tried to include just a small piece of the sky to partially compensate.
I don't know if it's my browser but while the photo that you enhanced has definitely more punch, it looks too saturated and contrasty. Probably I'll try a middle version and print it to see how it looks.


I am still curios about the strength of the ND filter that I used in the other photo. Is it the right amount?
And is the composition balanced?

[popnfresh]

I guess I'm missing something here. Why you were using an ND filter in the first place?

[armand]

This is the original jpg picture. For me the foreground is too dark and the clouds are a little overexposed.

[jdemott]

Perhaps others were confused, as I was, about the nature of your question.  I think you are asking about a graduated neutral density effect, which changes the relative exposure values in different parts of the image, instead of a neutral density filter, which affects the exposure of the overall image.  The Arizona shot has an extremely strong horizontal shadow which dominates the viewer's experience of the scene. The graduated ND effect you applied has softened the shadow effect somewhat but the shadow is still quite overwhelming to me.  The best thing you can do with this image is to bring more attention into the lower left foreground by brightening and warming it somewhat more.  But, for me, the shadow in the canyon is just too strong.  This is a shot that needs different light.

[popnfresh]

Graduated ND filters. Ugh. By their nature they can only provide a rough approximation of the exposure compensation you need, at best. Try to avoid them and shoot for HDR whenever possible.

[armand]

I know the light wasn't that good but as I said, I was just going to pass by that spot just once so I was trying to get as much as possible. I thought the scene was nice enough to give it a try.
I usually don't like modifying my photos too much, that's why I tried the graduated ND in Lightroom, as it's quite easy and fast. Also it stays truer to the nature of the picture. HDR for sure would bring better technical results but it might be easy to overdo it; I'll try it sometime in the future when I'll get the software to do it (or have enough patients to do it in PE7).

Although my first step is going to be to use a graduated ND filter on the field, as I now have at least one. I try to stay closer to the traditional photography at any moment in time, partially by choice, and partially by the lack of time.

Thanks for the feedback though as I don't have people around me that are into photography and I am my only critic.

[popnfresh]

Their are several current solutions that make it easy to produce great HDR shots without the color getting all weird. Photoshop CS5 is one. HDR PhotoStudio is another.