Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: cm_MURRAY on February 03, 2015, 11:57:07 am
-
One of my favorites from our first big storm this winter (December 11th, 2014).
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7524/16003377001_614f515599_b.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/16003377001/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/16003377001/)
-
Another from that day...
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8606/16004643452_15608a8f20_b.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/16004643452/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/cm_murray/16004643452/)
-
I prefer the first, though it could do with losing that blueish cast
-
I like #1, perhaps with cropping the left hand side, to side of the house. That way, the diagonal from the wires to the house would be emphasised.
-
Number 2 for me. In number 1 there is a unusual colour cast.
-
I remember a slight bluish cast in the natural light when I captured the image. Later on I struggled with my decision whether to remove it or not, but ultimately I felt that the image was missing character when corrected. I typically adjust the white balance in Lightroom (from raw) any time it looks off, but in this scenario I have decided to keep it. What would you do when natural light doesn't look natural?
I did slightly modify the original image I posted - I left the white balance alone, but muted the blues a bit.
Thanks for all the feedback!
-
Make some part of the scene white.
Yes, I understand the different means of correction, but my question was more a philosophical one. :)
To elaborate: Is it better honor the color of the light "as-is" in the scene, or produce a corrected version that looks right but isn't?
I think the answer is clear during sunrises/sunsets and the blue hour but when the differences are more subtle a choice has to be made.