Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on November 11, 2016, 08:40:24 am
-
Banff, Alberta.
Feedback welcome.
-
Very AA-esque :)
-
Simply stunning!
-
Good image. To me, I would have preferred it if the moon was a bit higher the sky, as I find the amount of empty sky in the image a bit too much. Also, the meadow is a bit dark.
But a fine image it is.
-
I think the open sky is a valid point but I still really like the image.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I like the way the light is distributed. I think this is a case where the near-foreground didn't have that much to contribute. You are on a roll Scott.
Chuck
-
Very AA-esque :)
Indeed. But it needs some clouds. How about cloning in some clouds from AA's "Moonrise Hernandez New Mexico?" ;)
-
Scott - this is simply stunning. AA would have been proud.
-
I like it a lot. Well done, Scott.
-
I think the open sky is a valid point but I still really like the image.
+1
The shadows could be opened about ⅓ to ½ tone and the lit aspen(?) trunks could also be raised a bit (which might happen anyway depending on how you raise the shadowed foreground). This is nit-picking though, on an iPad Air screen, not from a print, which might look outstanding in comparison!
-
The shadows could be opened about ⅓ to ½ tone and the lit aspen(?) trunks could also be raised a bit
I'll look into this. I think the range of light is interesting and could be enhanced.
Yeah, Paulo, the moon is too low. But instead of waiting I foolishly ran off looking for a better composition. Never found it. Lesson learned. Maybe.
Yes, Eric, it needs clouds. Is there anything more heartbreaking than a perfectly clear sky?
Thanks for the comments, glad you liked it.
-
To me, I would have preferred it if the moon was a bit higher the sky, as I find the amount of empty sky in the image a bit too much. Also, the meadow is a bit dark.
Look what I found in the trash folder.
Several aspects of the light differ here. I have tried brightening the shadowed distant trees but too much looks unnatural for this particular file.
-
If you are not philosophically opposed to such things, using Photoshop's Move tool to position the moon a little higher in the first image is easy to do. Your second image proves, after all, that you were in fact there when the moon was a little higher; you would just have to decide if your intention is more art or reportage.
-
Overall, I think I like the second version even better than the first.
It's nice to be able to see the grasses in the meadow, and the moon is higher.
Cloning would let you move it even higher if you want, but I don't think the image needs it.
-
Simply stunning!
+1
-
Look what I found in the trash folder.
Several aspects of the light differ here. I have tried brightening the shadowed distant trees but too much looks unnatural for this particular file.
Beautiful, Scott! This version is definitely "better" in every regard.
-
Beautiful, Scott! This version is definitely "better" in every regard.
Thanks to all here for vastly improving my photography in general.
Arlen: good to know about this tool but I try to avoid moving things around.
-
Can't wait to go through the rest of your "trash"!
-
Can't wait to go through the rest of your "trash"!
Yeah, it's scary what gets trashed sometimes. I think I kept the first version because I preferred the light on the land. But then I agreed that a higher moon would be nice.
Also, these B&W treatments are a lot more interesting than the out of camera images I looked at when initially culling.
-
also for me.....very AA-esque :) (but I have seen some AA prints, and I never saw better prints than these one for my tastes...)
Excellent, with simple but strong composition. I like also this neutral tone tuning, and the dark of the upper side of the sky.
All the best,
sandro
-
Very nice, indeed. And the second interpretation is the winner in my books.
-
A stunning image, well worth printing big
-
Well the higher moon is nice but I still prefer the darker foreground in the first. Too me it offers a much more intimate view than opening everything up.
Chuck
-
Well the higher moon is nice but I still prefer the darker foreground in the first.
Chuck
Me too, but I agree the second one also has its charms.
-
Both are excellent, but I think you got your crops reversed ;) I'd do the first as a pano (no problem with the dark sky, but it would de-emphasize how close the moon is to the mountains) and the second as a more conventional crop, eliminating the empty rollout on the right and balancing the foreground tree and the moon nicely.
-
Both are excellent, but I think you got your crops reversed ;) I'd do the first as a pano (no problem with the dark sky, but it would de-emphasize how close the moon is to the mountains) and the second as a more conventional crop, eliminating the empty rollout on the right and balancing the foreground tree and the moon nicely.
Thanks, James. In #2, the tree and moon get pushed quite far to the edge in a 3:2 crop. I'll need to think about this if I print at a standard size.
Thanks to all for their encouragement. It's amazing how much and fast the light changes even when driven only by the sun's altitude.