This image came to my mind again because I plan a hiking trip with my daughter. We intend to go to the Jura, a sub-alpine mountain range on the border of France and Switzerland. The mountains aren’t very high, say 6000ft max, but several summits offer excellent views on the nearby Alps. We went there 5 years ago and I shot this image.
Specific Feedback Requested:
Although the weather was great, the view was hazy because the air was pretty humid. But the large distant peak that you see is the Mont Blanc, approx. 50 miles away.
To come to this result, I needed heavy processing (DxO Photolab and further editing of the resulting image), something I rarely do. I like to hear your opinions about the result: is it still realistic, or is a typical result over over-processing?
Then: I personally don’t like the large, dark slope in the first layer of the distant view. But if I crop it mostly, I’ll also lose the green FG that I want to keep, for the depth in the image. By hindsight, laying down on the ground as low as possible could have been better, but then I would also lose the second layer of the distant view. What do you think?
I’ll add the unprocessed jpg, extracted from the RAW file.
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
Pentax K5, Pentax DA 4/16-45mm @45mm, f/10, 1/400s, ISO200.
You’ve done a wonderful job massaging all of that detail out of the original RAW file. My first impression upon seeing the image was that I liked how the foreground grass mimics the shape of the distant mountain ridges. Even though it’s extremely difficult to maintain focus on the extreme foreground, my instinct is to show more foreground to help ground the image. I can see how getting a bit lower would help bring the foreground up higher in the frame, but it wouldn’t take very much. Do you have any variations showing a bit more foreground?
I think you’ve done a great job - with both the near-far composition and the processing.
I definitely like the inclusion of the foreground grass/details; for sure this creates great depth and I like the point of view. I think you’ve included “just enough” of the foreground to tell the viewer this was intentional - but also agree with Ben that maybe just a bit more would have been better - but as presented, the foreground is working nicely (and also sufficiently sharp the keep it being a blurry distraction! so good job with that.)
Processing wise, I wouldn’t say this is over processed at all. Great job rescuing from the original RAW. My only comment/suggestion would be the shadows and much of the distant mountains are a bit blue; not grossly over so, but less blue in the shadows and especially the first mountain layer.
I can’t think of any other suggestions - maybe, dodging that large cloud in the UR as it’s slightly heavy, but not a big deal.
Well done - Thanks for sharing! Good luck on your upcoming hike!
Thank you, @Ben_Horne and @Lon_Overacker , for sharing your thoughts!
Unfortunately, I don’t have images showing a bit more foreground, I’ll have to do with the slice in this image.
I followed your comment, Lon, to dodge the large cloud a bit, and I removed a bit of blue from the first mountain layers. I agree that it is better.
