Hi everyone. I’ve recently purchased Essential photoshop for landscape photography by @Nick_Page which I’ve learned a lot from. I went out at first light to shoot this image with the intention of putting the lessons into practice and progressing with Photoshop.
The PP incorporated focus sacking, a focal length blend (has this worked or does it look bad?), dodging and burning, contrast adjustments and sharpening.
Please be as critical as you like with this. I’m not 100% on the image myself and I don’t know of its down to composition, the post processing being bad or the fact that there was absolutely nothing going on with the sky. I also don’t like the grass in the middle of the frame, it hasn’t blended as well as I hoped when combining the 2 focal lengths.
I like the pink light on the mountain top but don’t know if I should exaggerate it or leave it.
I look forward to your comments.
@Nick_Page your videos are awesome. You make it very easy to understand for the layman. Good job!
Chris you point out a number of things that possibly concern you about this image. When confronted with issues like this in my own work, I usually start by asking the question “what elements in this scene attracted me in the first place, and did I do enough to emphasize those things in the best possible way”?
In this image the things that I find most attractive are the strong foreground rock and it’s near/far relationship with the mountain, the contrast in red/green colors, and perhaps the alpenglow on the mountain. I think you did a good job with composing the foreground rock diagonally like this to create interest. I like the receding color layers of green to yellow to red/brown, it helps create depth.
What bothers me here is you composed too tightly on the rock, nearly clipping it on the left, I’d like to see more space to the left. Same issue with the sky, there needs to be a lot more breathing room at the top if you want to include the alpenglow (exposure blending needed for that). Or maybe you elect to crop the alpenglow away and just show the bottom half of the mountain, which emphasizes the red/green contrast even more.
I think a lot of these type of issues need to be considered in the field when making the image, relying on a lot of post-processing after the fact can’t always make an image work by processing alone. For example these issues with composition are far more important to me than the way focal blending makes the mountain look.
Thanks Ed. I agree about the rock. I tweaked and tweaked trying to get more room but I either had to go higher or move the tripod back and it seemed to lose the impact of the rock.
There was absolutely nothing in the sky. If it wasn’t for that lovely pink light I’d have removed it altogether. The light was coming from the side so there wasn’t even any interesting colour behind the mountain which was a real shame.
Thanks for your points. I’m glad you aren’t saying anything I hadn’t already considered which I guess shows progress.
Chris this issue of getting locked on something to the exclusion of other possibilities happens to me all the time. Yes the alpenglow is really beautiful. But it forces you to bring in a bald sky, or it prevents you from thinking of this having potential for B&W.
As a color image, I’d argue a crop like this may be more effective in showing depth near/far, while the alpenglow is nice it can draw attention away from other interesting parts of the landscape.
Another suggestion, compose wider than you need in the field, and leave yourself latitude for recomposing via crop later. This is one instance where post-processing can make up for stuff you may not have noticed in the field.
In reassessing my suggestions this morning I feel that the conversion to b&w brought out the texture of the fg rocks and also made the mid ground grasses more interesting. The monotonous of the hills have remained the same, however. I would work on that and the sky.
Even if you don’t like the b&w eventually it is a useful exercise to make the conversion because it simplifies the image and reveals issues which color hides with it’s presence. To be honest, I didn’t really like this image at first glance. But then I realized that it had very strong compositional elements and started to wonder why it didn’t register more favorably.
The more I look the more I don’t like it. I love a strong foreground and some interesting light which it has but the lack of any drama in the sky really ruins it. If anything it was a way of practicing some new photoshop skills.
The composition is a good one; classic with a successful near/far presentation. Colors/processing in the landscape look great to me.
As you already assessed, it’s the sky. It’s too clone in tone/luminosity to the snow-dusted peak. Not sure if you cropped or framed the comp this way, but even if the sky was a pretty/deep blue, it’s to tight at the top. (I’m pretty sure if the sky was more cooperative, you would have included more, naturally.)
While Ed’s crop completely changes the vision of the image, I believe it’s a better image overall. For me, as you mention, the sky just isn’t helping here.
A lot of good comments that I generally agree with. One other comment: A near/far composition generally tries to create a “line” that viewers eye easily follows. Your foreground had some interest to it (as noted). And the alpenglow had some interest that attracted you as well. But the line between them was “blocked” by a very dark band across the lower mountains. If you really wanted to stick with this composition, you could lighten up that midground and darken the sky behind the peak. The BW conversion does seem to lighten the mid ground, but the peak blends into the sky too much (same luminosity).
