My original take on this picture was that I loved the light that was hitting the forest (the primary reason I took the picture in the first place) and the dramatic way the curve of the dark upper clouds was the complimentary opposite of the curve of the forest horizon below. I felt there was great graphic possibilities and envisioned doing it in black and white. But, for many months I have resisted working on it because the composition didn’t quite feel right until I realized that the strip of water on the bottom of the frame (in the original RAW image) had to go. Changing the aspect ratio from 2:3 to 10:16 did the trick but that old bugaboo remained – black and white or colour. Usually, it feels obvious to me when monochrome is the better choice – if the image is about light and line and the colour detracts from that. But this one seemed to offer possibilities for both colour and black and white – though two distinctly different directions with entirely different moods. I haven’t posted them together because I’d rather you didn’t bob back and forth comparing. I’d really prefer your impressions and comments based on the image as a stand-alone rather than “which one is best”.
I decided to do this colour version first, once I realized that the colour in this case actually enhanced the notion of complimentary opposites. The upper, darker clouds are in the blue range and the lower forest horizon is in the yellow range (not green as you might imagine) – so, over and above the compliments of the curves, the colours themselves are complimentary. I felt, in this case, the colours enhanced the bifurcation idea that I felt was so prominent in the lucky play of the clouds. In any case, I would love to hear your impressions of this, both from perspectives emotional and technical. Do you feel that the colour enhances or detracts from the graphic appeal of this image? I will post the black and white version tomorrow or the next day.
I really like this one! The color works great for me and really adds to the graphic look of the image. I might do some 10% cloning to the blown area of the cloud to give it a hint of texture, but that is pretty minor. Excellent.
What caught my eyes immediately, Kerry, are the shapes. And then the colors At first, at least for me, it felt abstract, but then I got lost in all the textures and colors. Just love it!
The mirror effect of cloud and forest is really nicely captured and isolated. Like @linda_mellor it is the shapes that first draw me in, then the softness in the clouds contrasted with the sharpness of the trees (tension in the mirror image, I guess?) In any case, while the color is lovely I do wonder what the B&W version will look like; I’m guessing it will be even more effective.
I love this image for all the reasons you discussed, Kerry! In my opinion, the color is very important in this scene because the separation of the 3 graphical elements is as much, or actually more about color as it is about contrast. In addition, while the graphical shapes are important, one of the most striking aspects of this scene is the gorgeous color, texture and detail in the forest. The colors in the trees amplify the affect of the unique lighting for me. It would be a nice b&w but the color is what really makes it extra special for me.
The shapes, as you say, are beautifully opposite and harmonious. The light too, is wonderful. In terms of what the color image does for me is this - it connects me to nature in a way that black and white never does. I feel disconnected with monochrome and view those photos, including my own, from a more graphic and technical perspective. They are less emotional than color versions of the very same scenes or objects. Maybe it’s that for most of us our color vision is acute and rich and monochrome feels artificial by comparison. At least that’s what it seems to me. Emotionally B&W nature images feel distant and clinical. This color is inviting in a way that I’m not sure the monochrome would be.
I too love this image for all the reasons you discussed Kerry, your self-critque/analysis is right on the money as far as I am concerned. Yes, the graphic elements are there, and I’m sure this aspect works well in both color and B&W. But to me the color image is about the dynamic energy of stormy and changing weather. Seeing this in color creates a stronger emotional connection to the landscape for me because it makes me feel like I am there witnessing this drama.
The colors and light in this image are reminiscent of the sublime / romantic interpretation of nature embodied by the Hudson River school of landscape painting. It reminds me of some of the scenes of stormy nature from painters like Cole and Bierstadt. Their images depict the awesome grandness of nature, and your use of color and light in this image captures that same spirit.
I like the composition and the feel of this image. I’ll go against the grain here and say that I feel the trees are oversaturated and perhaps even have too much contrast. To my eye they look just a bit over processed. That’s my reaction to it and it is a subjective reaction as nobody else seems to see it that way. I think it may also be the cyan in them.
Lovely image as shown. I do tend to agree with @Igor_Doncov to at least some extent and wonder how this will look with some desaturation of the green as well as yellow . And also decreasing the contrast some in the green trees. The clouds in the top left section look perfect !
@Harley_Goldman , @linda_mellor , @Mario_Cornacchione , @Gary_Minish , @joaoquintela - Thank you all for your kind comments, particularly your emotional response, that’s very helpful indeed. I would be interested, now that you can compare the original with a toned down version, if you still prefer the more vibrant version. @Kris_Smith, @jefflafrenierre - Thank you both for your thoughts and feelings on this one. I will be very interested to get your feedback on the B&W, which I will probably post later today. They really are two entirely different pictures. @Ed_McGuirk - I do love the light and colour aesthetic of the Hudson River boys (or is that a country band I’m confusing them with?). I would be very interested on your take on the revised version where I’ve pulled back on the intensity - the vibrance, saturation and texture/clarity of the forest. Frankly, I’m not sure. @Igor_Doncov , @Karl_Zuzarte - After all the work in post and you want it darker (tip of the hat to Leonard Cohen). Honestly, as I said to Ed above, I’m not sure. The difference isn’t huge but it does change the overall feel to be sure. Toning it down - hue, saturation, vibrance, clarity/texture does it give it a more naturalistic feel but I can’t decide if that’s what I want. Post production is a rabbit hole! but I’ll be interested in your thoughts.
I personally like the rework more. Although the image has become slightly more moody. It seems to work with those clouds but it does as you say change the mood a bit and may not be your intent.
Put me down for the rework. I saw nothing wrong with the original but then seeing the rework, it was yeah, that works even better. It seems to fit the stormy sky and enhances that mood.
For me, a lot of the romanticized appeal of the HRS is that their skies have a warm, luminous glow, and dramatic clouds, and I think your image very much has that same aesthetic in the sky. I made the HRS comment mostly because your sky was evocative of those paintings. And, to some degree that same warm, luminous glow often appears in the highlights of the land itself in HRS paintings.
Kerry, you know my work, and you know I’m not afraid to use strong color, as long as it feels right and is consistent with the light in the scene. While I can see why some folks would comment on the saturation of the greens, the rework has lost some of it’s snap for my taste. I’m not sure if it’s due to lower saturation, I think it may be more due to the reduced luminosity of the trees makes them lose some of their glow. So to me its more about lost luminosity.
Can you reduce saturation, while retaining more luminosity than in the rework? I tried another rework, starting from the original post. I used a TK Saturation Mask 1 to reduce saturation in only the most saturated colors (-25), and then applied a light TK Smart Orton at low opacity (15%) for a slight glow. I think this has slightly more snap than the rework, but reduces some of the most saturated colors. But frankly we are talking about very personal and subjective opinions. My preference would be to be somewhere in-between the original and your rework, with the goal of retaining more luminosity in the trees than in your rework, while taming the most saturated colors. I’ll admit the change in my rework is pretty subtle, so maybe it helps, maybe not.
@Ed_McGuirk The HRS painters knew how to make it glow. And yes, that is what I’m after. I am agonizing over this one, that’s for sure. I posted one more rework. I’m not sure anymore if there is any difference I pulled back on the saturation a little more and pumped up the vibrance so it is glowing a bit more, but just a bit. Enough to make a difference?
I’m playing catchup here (or trying to) and haven’t seen the B/W but I do think you have something special here – enough so that it inspired me to do a bit of playing whatif. I think it was @Ed_McGuirk’s mention of the Hudson River school that sparked that urge.
Although I prefer Rework 2, I started with the original (for no good reason). I tried (clumsily) to tone down the brightest highlights in the sky, added a bit of contrast to it and burned down the UL with a subtle gradient. I tried to add a bit of soft mystery to the trees with Nik CEP’s Glamour Glow. All these are clumsy attempts and could be done better in the raw file, especially with the new tonal masking tools in LR. The brightness of the narrow gap of sky in the left half pulls my eye, but I wasn’t able to do much with it. I’m not posting this an a suggested improvement so much as to toss out ideas.
but I’ll be interested in your thoughts.
