What changed: Here is my take based upon suggestions made. (1)I raised the luminosity of the grasses a tad. (2) I did not do an any sharpening of the image. (3) I cloned out some bright grasses on the llc.
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
It was a windy night. The tent shook violently and it seemed it would not end. My Apple Watch told me I had slept poorly. But all that meant little when I stepped out of the tent shortly after daybreak. It was dead calm at the lake. Only the clouds remained from the past turmoil. And what clouds! All I could do was tilt my head upwards. What glory. It was an astonishing site.
Specific Feedback
What made this scene is that the clouds stretched from far off directly towards me. Does the image capture that depth? Because if it doesn’t this image is a failure in my mind.
Technical Details
GFX50R, 45-100mm, f/11, tripod. I probably should have used my 32-64mm lens but didn’t have it handy.
Igor, you did not fail here. The depth created by the clouds is palpable. I love the dark mountains, but I do feel the grasses in the foreground could be brought up just a bit; not a lot. the clouds and the sky look great with nice color and texture in the clouds. Well done, sir!
-P
Excellent use of the land to support your goal of giving depth to the clouds. Both the small amount you included, and the V formed by the slopes on each side give that depth you are looking for. It gives me the impression that the clouds are on a slow journey to far, far, away.
The clouds create such a vastness. It always amazes me how much larger clouds are than the massive mountains. I agree that the grasses could use some lightening, and maybe get some detail in the mountains.
I’m not sure about that. If I wanted to show things as they were then yes I would make the land brighter. But here the slope and mountains are meant to visually offset the sky and clouds. If you feel it could be improved in the suggested manner I invite you to post the changes you had in mind. Maybe I’m wrong.
Igor, as a personal rule I do not tweak the work of others. That said, my comment was made because I feel the grasses look a tad muddy. It could also be a slight difference in the way our monitors display the image. I leave it to you to decide whether to keep it as-is or tweak it a tiny bit. The mountains work fine for me. Either way, it’s a fine image.
-P
Well then in that case, leave it as you envisioned. My suggestion was based on saying to myself, “there is quite a bit of light on those clouds, why is it not reflecting down on the grassy area, or maybe some on the mountains?”
Hi Igor,
Astonishing indeed. I was immediately drawn to this image because of the way the clouds form that “vanishing point” convergence. In classic visual design, the points merge, and here they don’t, but the land itself does. To me, this creates a wonderful kind of visual energy taking me into that vast landscape, which is so characteristic of Central and Eastern Oregon. I’m assuming this is maybe near Lake Abert?
I can see the point about slight brightening of the foreground, but that might bring our eyes down? And I think our eyes are supposed to stay near the horizon on this one, looking forward, not back, keeping on keepin’ on.
While it would have been wonderful to have a wider angle lens on hand, I still get the feeling of the vastness of the sky. I thought maybe that feeling could be enhanced with a touch more contract across the sky (giving a greater sense of depth was my thought). Here’s my idea (did a sky mask and put on a slight S curve). Also, there’s a distinct halo along the tops of the mountains (maybe from darkening the land?). You could fix that with a clone tool set to darkening with sampling of the sky immediately above the halo (if that makes sense).
Thank you, Bonnie. I posted it up above for easy comparison. I like the changes but perhaps something in between might hit the spot. What is noticeable is that some of the blue has been reduced in both the sky and the bottom of the clouds. I do find it more arresting though. There is also some sharpness to the whites in the clouds that bothers me. I’m starting to get very finicky about clouds. Basically I don’t like sharp edges in them. I think that’s due to global sharpening instead of just the level ground.
Yes, I desaturated the blues because the S curve I put on (in ACR) increased the saturation. I probably desaturated it too much. ACR probably also sharpened it some as a default, which I didn’t notice. My edits are always to show a general idea - no one should take them too literally - ha.
The image is definitely a success. You’ve acheived your goal of giving depth and vastness. Usually I’m all for opening up darker areas unless they’re meant to be silhouettes, but I don’t think it’s needed in this case. Also, I know I’m weird, but I love sharp clouds.
Agree with the others - you greatly succeeded in capturing the depth. You mentioned the clouds stretching from “far to near”, towards you. On the flip side and just as successful for the viewer, one could say the clouds, and the convergence if I could steal from ML, with the land, drawing the viewer in to the grand landscape. Either way, there is great depth here.
I also had a similar thought as Preston and Youssef about the grasses and landscape. Of course your intent to have the mountains offset the sky/clouds is understood and appreciate the intent - it works well. I think we are all guilty of forgetting that the viewer wasn’t there, but the goal is often to convince and bring the viewer there.
Here’s my initial reaction beyond the lead-in comp. You are a master photorapher and I know you exposed and processed it exactly as you intented. I get it. As the viewer however, my reaction was this was a scene captured with the camera set to “P” or “A”, metrix metering, the camera says the sky is bright and wants to bring it towards nuetral gray; in compromise, the sky looks great, but the land and grasses appear underexposed. So don’t get this wrong, my thought would be from a beginner exposing a scene like this. But you’re not and all was intentional.
In a much shorter summary… I think the darker mountains work perfectly in visually offsetting with the sky. For me, and I think the others, the grassy land is ever so slightly muddy - for lack of a better term.
I can’t say this is how Preston would have suggested, but this is my edit for a visual illustrating the edit/comments (and great example of the recent discussion!)
ps. In seeing the edit posted, it’s too much, so would actually back of the opacity of that layer maybe even 50%. I wanted a subtle change. But hopefully the idea comes thru
Thank you Lon for posting the rework. I see the changes you made. I do believe that some dodging of the grasses may be in order. As you say, perhaps 50% of the amount in the rework.
Thank you all. I made some of the suggested changes. I raised the luminosity of the grasses a tad but did not change the clouds. I felt there was enough drama in the sky. I didn’t sharpen the image to keep the clouds looking puffy rather than rakish. I’m not sure that this image was worth all that work but because I haven’t made an image in 9 months I thought I would put the time in.
Oh, and btw, here is the unedited file. As you can see I cloned out the edge of the lake and gave it a 1 degree CCW rotation. There actually was a slope in reality but I thought I’d make it horizontal and that seems to have worked.
Igor, the vastness of the sky and those great “cloud streets” are shown off very well. The details in the clouds are wonderful. I do like the brighter grasses in the revision. I spent 3 hours, up to sunset, Wednesday watching thunderstroms grow in the distance and scattered showers wander against the vast MT sky and high mountains. This captures a lot of what kept my interest for that length of time. Definitely successful.
Absolutely! The dramatic width of the that main cloud on the left tapering to much finer point drives the point home for me. It shows how big and vast the scene really is. The accompanying clouds on the right help guide the eyes to valley beyond. What also adds to the depth is the decreasing height of both mountain ranges, right and left that lead the eye through that far off valley.
I believe I like the third revision best. I don’t like the darkening of the clouds as it becomes too much about the contrast in the clouds and the rest of the scene gets lost by comparison. #3 is just right. Wonderful capture, Igor.
