That Damn Star Photo

[maddogmurph]

Well, I've spent entirely too much time on this photograph. And I think I'm mostly posting it as an example of a failure of sorts. But I'll open up the stage to debate what could/should be done, if anything? Perhaps this is better posted in the critique section, but maybe it's a showcase and I just can't see it because my eyes are cross eyed now from looking at this too long.

What I'm posting is a dark version edit, light version edit, the original star trails blend which is a few minute exposure for the foreground, and the sky exposure which is roughly 20 seconds or so for the stars. The sky looks good and the foreground looks good, but when I slam them together they seem to melt down. I'm blaming it on color theory. Also, I'm to the point where I feel like if I'm going to put this much time into a photograph, it should be a lot more interesting.

But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these. The last two are just raw processing, sharpened, and saved as JPG for web. No noise reduction, and simply to show essentially the "negatives" where I start from.

[Paulo Bizarro]

My preference goes to #1, dark version. However, even in that one, I find the foreground too light. Also, the distant mountains in the area where they touch the sky, are to my eyes too light, and the contrast with the sky becomes then a bit unnatural for a night shot.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

My preference goes to #1, dark version. However, even in that one, I find the foreground too light. Also, the distant mountains in the area where they touch the sky, are to my eyes too light, and the contrast with the sky becomes then a bit unnatural for a night shot.

+1

[Bob_B]

Yes to the first (by a long shot).

[francois]

Add me to the #1 shot lover list! It looks more natural than the "light" version. FWIW, I find #1 and #2 much more pleasing the the last two shots.

[NikoJorj]

My preference goes to #1, dark version. However, even in that one, I find the foreground too light. Also, the distant mountains in the area where they touch the sky, are to my eyes too light, and the contrast with the sky becomes then a bit unnatural for a night shot.

Same for me.
The distant mountains are less disturbing though (they go not so badly with that lovely airglow - or is it a small aurora?), but I find the ground part too light for a night image - the foreground seems a bit like light-painted.

[Peter McLennan]

I'm in the "foreground too light" camp.  It looks unnatural, "Photoshopped" in the vernacular.
If the FG was a stop darker, you'd still see detail there, but you'd not be yanked into the otherworldly.

Still, a fine image.

[EricV]

Strikes me as two subjects fighting for attention.  I like it better cropped to show just the sky plus distant mountains.  Then the sky is clearly the subject and it looks great.

[Arlen]

My preference goes to #1, dark version. However, even in that one, I find the foreground too light. Also, the distant mountains in the area where they touch the sky, are to my eyes too light, and the contrast with the sky becomes then a bit unnatural for a night shot.

Another note of agreement with Paolo. Looks like a gorgeous spot though.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Paulo nailed it exactly. First version is best, but foreground is still too light.