Camp

[armand]

I really wanted to make this work but I'm afraid the mistakes/lack of tools when it was first shot are difficult to overcome in post. I just can't let go so I want to hear other opinions also.

[Jim Pascoe]

I do like these - the bottom, darker one works better for me.  If I assume correctly that the glow in the middle is a camp, then it might work better in colour.  That said in spite of the fact I love the mono.

Jim

[RSL]

Really good shooting, Armand. I agree with Jim that #2 is the better of the two, though I like the brighter stars in #1.

[jjj]

My first thoughts on this was that colour may be better for this shot or at least [split] toning the B+W image. Looks a bit like a straight greyscale conversion.
And the first shot is much better as the framing is stronger.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I like it, but I think I'd open up the shadows a little.

[armand]

They are both versions of the same shot, processed in Nik (after LR) at different times. As it was, once saved I could not go back and replicate what I did hence I just started to learn some Photoshop because of this shot. Now I can use Silver Efex as a smart object and go back later to modify little things (that is if I actually remember to go into Photoshop for this edits).

Parts of the problems I'm facing now were created mostly by me. This was the second trip after a week; in the first I had a tripod but didn't use it so I decided to skip it the second time and bring only a table tripod. This was shot just outside a cabin which had decently powered outdoor lights, overpowering the stars/moon/etc, which could have been avoided if I went farther away (but no tripod tall enough to stick above the grass) or a longer lens (I was too lazy/aprehensive placing an early preorder for the Fuji 55-200). Another issue was that despite the fact I had an remote for the Fuji I also left it and the 30 sec exposure was barely adequate for what I wanted.

These being said here is another version, trying to combine the better elements from both.

[jjj]

I think you may be best working on this in LR rather than PS. Two things may improve image cropping bottom black area or finding more detail in that area so it isn't just black.
I tried both out of curiosity, but obviously not having original file it's harder to rescue data from the black. But it was still better than cropping off the black.

[armand]

Finding more detail it's easy as it was darkened on purpose - I wanted  to draw attention to the camp, which is small and difficult to notice otherwise. I'll give it a try with lighter surroundings.

[RSL]

The whole point of the picture is the isolation of the camper, so "cropping the bottom black area" or bringing up detail in it isn't going to help. Color wipes it out altogether. #2 is about as good a product as you're going to get, and it's pretty good. It reminds me of flying at night over northern Canada years ago in a C47. Total blackness down there until we finally came to a camper along the Churchill river. That was isolation.

[armand]

What Russ said.

For those who still want more detail here is that version.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

For those who still want more detail here is that version.

I like this version much better. Maybe with some more shameless editing and experimenting with the level of the moon and the camp and some masking it could even be made stronger.
Thank you for posting this edit !

[jjj]

Yup far better.

[RSL]

It's nice to have detail, but a lot of the solitariness is lost when you make the campfire compete with other fairly bright areas. The revision is better technically, but #2 is the better picture because it gets the point across.

[jjj]

Are you making a point or a good photo though?
A featureless black area at bottom of a landscape rarely works well.

[RSL]

To me a good photo conveys a transcendental experience, jjj. The revision is, as you say, a "good photo" in a technical sense, but it doesn't give you the jolt #2 does. Actually, I'm not sure that with this kind of picture you can see enough on a computer monitor to judge properly. I'd love to see a 17 x 22 print. I suspect that in a print you'd be able to bring out more detail in #2 and still retain its effectiveness.

[jjj]

I don't care if a photo is technically good or not. I do care if it works or not though.
For me the large black area doesn't work and that's coming from someone who likes large areas of black with no shadow detail.
A lot of my favourite photos are actually quite poor technical quality.

[RSL]

A lot of my favourite photos are actually quite poor technical quality.

Mine too. I've been an HCB fan since the mid fifties.

[alainbriot]

I suggest this option:

[RSL]

Technically brilliant, Alain, but as far as impact is concerned: thud. One problem is that if you lift the lows that far the shack on the side of the hill becomes more prominent and tends to destroy the sense of isolation. It's a beautiful picture, but the transcendental impact has flown.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Technically brilliant, Alain, but as far as impact is concerned: thud. One problem is that if you lift the lows that far the shack on the side of the hill becomes more prominent and tends to destroy the sense of isolation. It's a beautiful picture, but the transcendental impact has flown.

Russ - I tend to believe you're sort of biased due to your former flight experience, which gives you a different (not wrong - don't get me wrong here) subjective perspective here.

Viewing is greatly learned. E.G. when a person (forgot who it was exactly) who knew J.W.v.Goethe learned about Goethes color theory, especially about contradicting colors contrasts, he started to see these kinds of contrasts everywhere and his seeing experience was irrevocably altered.

We are entering the lands of subjectivism here and though I understand your point well, I still feel it different.