Moonlapse

[maddogmurph]

Do you ever start working on a photograph that needs nearly nothing, and then 4 hours later you seem to have made it worse? I mean I'm actually pretty sure I've made it better in one of these two renditions than the original. It just seems logical to process the tree and foreground apart from the sky, but the reality is I really love both of these in their own way. This was that magic hour that I call Astro Twilight - that time when things are blue, there's still a slight burn happening (sometimes) which is barely visible to the eye, and the stars have come out. In this case I had a moon sliver that when shot in a long exposure while misty clouds roll by created a slight rainbow effect and a shimmering globe of light. I suppose I'm playing with a more muted color scheme in Moonlapse2 - some of this technique I've seen done that creates almost a more monotone look. Unfortunately I feel like maybe the contrast has pushed it to that "grungy" look that some people talk about which I try to avoid. Moonlapse also feels to me a bit wide on the color spectrum, maybe over saturated, but also doesn't feel like it has much of a "pop"

Thoughts?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I much prefer the mood of Moonlapse 2. The sky in the other version looks too much like daytime. The tree is fine in both.

Eric

[John R]

I like this a lot. I would avoid the plastic look. I like the first because the background is darker, more sombre. More in keeping with a night sky. Tree is just right to me. Subdued, just enough light to see some detail without competing with the sky. The second image, I would say is more pop, more punchy, but less authentic IMO. Especially around the bottom blue-sky area. But they are both good enough. You will find most prefer punchy images. But not necessarily people on LuLa.

JR

[maddogmurph]

I much prefer the mood of Moonlapse 2. The sky in the other version looks too much like daytime. The tree is fine in both.

Thanks Eric & JR. I spent an additional 2 hours on the subdued version. It's amazing how much time we can spend on our art.

[MattBurt]

I prefer the second although I think it could use a slight blue adjustment, like a more indigo hue. Or slight desaturation as you mention.

Really nice image by the way. It just needs a little tuning.

[farbschlurf]

Do you ever start working on a photograph that needs nearly nothing, and then 4 hours later you seem to have made it worse?

To be honest, most of the time ...
:-(
When I go back I often think, wasn't it better that way?

In this case: I think you did well, but both versions do.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I prefer #2, during blue hour, that is what a long exposure will look like. The subdued version greys the sky too much.

[Alskoj]

I much prefer the mood of Moonlapse 2. The sky in the other version looks too much like daytime. The tree is fine in both.

Eric

+1

[John Cothron]

I like moonlapse 2 for reasons already mentioned.  You could perhaps go a little brighter with it if you wanted. Part of the way but not all the way to moonlapse.  Like 15% that direction.  I think it looks great as is though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob_B]

I prefer the second as well, but both are visually interesting. One nit: I noticed some edge effects on the upper tree branches possibly due to sharpening artifacts or other processing methods. They're subtle, yet visible at full magnification.

[maddogmurph]

I prefer the second as well, but both are visually interesting. One nit: I noticed some edge effects on the upper tree branches possibly due to sharpening artifacts or other processing methods. They're subtle, yet visible at full magnification.

It's actually the moonlight on just the edge of the branch im guessing that you're noticing. I saw that as well. In full resolution you can tell. Are you talking about the upper right hand branch?

[Bob_B]

Indeed I am. As they say, 'Look what a little moonlight can do...'

[kers]

Beautiful picture-

i would prefer 2 also!
I agree too much sharpening would ruin it... has too look real in all it surreality.