> You're absolutely right, I had not noticed before. It is possible that it is a reducing effect. In the original files will not see this halo. Even so, I will review it carefully.
You are correct. The halos are due to the size reduction and don’t exist on the original. My bad.
> But take this opportunity to make self-criticism. For me, the main shortcoming of this image, is the lack of volumes due to the absence of shadows. The sun is too high and landforms are completely enlightened, and consequently very flat.
I think this is the kind of thing that only the author would notice. Were the capture made during a more shadow intensive time of day the scene would lack the sense of mid-day, which is a lot of what it’s about.
> It's a shame, because even distinguish various levels in the image, the absence of shadows, subtract the effect of depth, which greatly enrich the image.
Not sure I agree here. When I do sunrise or sunset shots, I always worry about capturing detail in the shadows without blowing the sky. But the truth is that most viewers expect the shadows in that case and the eye will accept a lack of detail in the shadows as long as the sunset/sunrise colors are as expected. The same kind of unwritten rule applies in afternoon shots. The overhead lighting gives the strongest colors, but the trade is a lack of shadow. Again, I think the viewer expects this.
