Wispy House in Snow

[Todd Suttles]

I went back and re-shot this location in snow last week. Would appreciate C&C of these two versions of it. Each has elements I like. I think I prefer the darker one. Thanks in advance, -t

[Steve Weldon]

The dark one -  To my eyes this is over processed.  So much so that my eyes have to search to find the house.  But once I do, and once I put together the other parts of the scene I like it very much.  I just would have went in another direction with the processing.

The lighter one -  Just not.. enough.  Not enough definition, not enough contrast, not enough detail.. basically what you would expect of a scene in a snow storm.  A good reality based image, but imo not anything I'd want to hang  on the wall.

[Ed Blagden]

Todd

I actually prefer the lighter one but I agree with Steve that it could do with a bit more contrast.  The darker one is way overdone in my view.

By the way you have some dust bogies on your sensor - very visible in the high contrast shot!

Ed

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I agree with Ed and Steve.
I think if you bumped up the contrast just a bit on the lighter one, and gentles down the processing just a tad on the darker one, then they would be two different but equally satisfying views. They both have lots of potential.

[Todd Suttles]

I agree with Ed and Steve.
I think if you bumped up the contrast just a bit on the lighter one, and gentles down the processing just a tad on the darker one, then they would be two different but equally satisfying views. They both have lots of potential.

Thanks Ed, Steve and Eric. Here is the lighter with more contrast and the darker completely started over again. PS: the dust is just snow blowing across the scene. Thanks in advance, -t

[cjogo]

Good seeing ~!    The contrast helped on the final ....

[Steve Weldon]

Todd -

Both are much improved and I think you took the best of what everyone mentioned.

If I may suggest one more thing?  These have the look of a plug-in like Topaz of something of that nature where they add effects.  If you must use these, use them at their lightest settings for long enough to let them grow on you.  Ideally you can do the same things in PS in individual steps and if this is what you did, great and I'm sorry for sticking my nose it. I just feel there's a lot of benefit to slowly developing your style and techniques in very small steps with something pure like PS..  People tend to use effects to mask deficiencies in sharpness, contrast, or otheir areas a better lens or better technique would take care of.. with better overall results.  If I'm wrong you have every right to shoot me.. if not (and I don't expect an answer) I hope my comments find some traction with your processing.

Steve

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

For me the last edit (is it #2-B ?) really makes it.
Its no more overexposed too much, has this nice foggy atmosphere and good differentiated tones.

[Ed Blagden]

Todd,

Yes - vr3-2 does it for me.  Really captures the bleak midwinter.  This seems to me just the right amount of contrast.

I think the image might benefit from a little less foreground.  There is no law of photography which says that all crops have to be 3x2. 

[francois]

Now, with the last edits, I like these images a lot. The first one was, as others said before me, over-processed and my eyes [almost] didn't see the house. The second, original image was much better.

[Todd Suttles]

Thanks Everyone for your time and suggestions; much appreciated. -t