Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on April 13, 2018, 02:49:19 pm

Title: berg
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 13, 2018, 02:49:19 pm

Don't look, Russ! It's another berg!

Anyone else, please comment  ;)

Jeremy

Title: Re: berg
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 13, 2018, 03:07:28 pm

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.

Title: Re: berg
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 13, 2018, 04:29:38 pm

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 13, 2018, 03:07:28 pm

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.

I agree with Slobodan.

Title: Re: berg
Post by: francois on April 14, 2018, 10:27:42 am

Also have to agree. The rays are visible in the thumbnail but not (or not that much) in the larger image.
Spend a bit more time in PP and you'll have another stunning shot.

Title: Re: berg
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 14, 2018, 11:00:02 am

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 13, 2018, 03:07:28 pm

It is a decent, standard, classical shot of an iceberg. Nothing wrong with that. Now, there seems to be something there that, with a bit of postprocessing, my elevate it above standard. There seem to be rays, or clouds that look like rays, that seem to radiate from behind the iceberg. Working on the sky portion, you might want to increase the contrast and/or Clarity to bring it out further.

Fair point. It was the "rays" which attracted me to the shot, and they aren't as apparent in this JPEG as they seemed to me on my Mac.

Here's a somewhat more "worked" version. I don't think it's overdone.

Jeremy

Title: Re: berg
Post by: David Eckels on April 14, 2018, 12:09:56 pm

I really like where you went with that, Jeremy. That being said, if it was me, I'd crop to a 2:1 AR to remove some of the sea at the bottom. If it was me, but then it isn't!

Title: Re: berg
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 14, 2018, 02:38:11 pm

Much better in the new version.

As for cropping the bottom, you might want to ask Russ for advice.   ;)

Title: Re: berg
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 15, 2018, 04:05:31 am

Quote from: David Eckels on April 14, 2018, 12:09:56 pm

I really like where you went with that, Jeremy. That being said, if it was me, I'd crop to a 2:1 AR to remove some of the sea at the bottom. If it was me, but then it isn't!

Thanks, David, but I like the blue in the water too much to lose it.

Jeremy