Two different images from the same location about 10 - 15 minutes apart. The first image is with a telephoto and the second being wide angle. What I like about the rockies in fall is that the weather is constantly changing and there’s no need to wait for sunset.
What technical feedback would you like if any?
Anything
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Any preferences or comments on the different perspectives or light?
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
First image - 1/800s, f5.6, ISO800, 109mm
Second Image - 1/80s, f10, ISO500, 35mm
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.
@nathankleinphotos
You may only download this image to demonstrate post-processing techniques.
Both are very nicely framed and captured mountain landscapes. I like the symmetrical framing of the snow covered peak in the first image. I’m not sure the presence of the glacial river in the first adds to the scene - one of those cases where I either want to see more of the river, or none at all. And given the framing of the peak with the two mountain slopes and line of forest at the bottom, I would be inclined to crop at a minimum the river, then possibly the rocky river bed and up to where the vegetation starts. Also, I think the first was shot at f/5.6. The trees look pretty sharp, but the mountain peak a little soft, probably not enough depth of field to get both sharp - plus you’re dealing with a bit of atmosphere too. I think a crop and some increased contrast in the mountain peak and clouds would improve this one.
The second image I think is the stronger technically I think and the composition is solid. The river plays better here, but still feels a little cut off. I could also see cropping it out here, right up to the rocky shore (including the river bed this time.) Love the light striking the rocky peak and think this is the big plus here. Plus the mountain peak has a little better detail, although I think could be sharpened a bit. I could see bumping up contrast in the peak and sky/clouds as well.
Colors and processing look good with both. I think some tweaks, especially with the second landscape version.
I decided to play with this and see what I could come up with. Added a number of layers, but mostly wanted to increase global contrast. Then added a Curves layer in Soft light blending mode (no adjustment, just the layer and adjusted the opacity to taste,) then masked it all and just painted back in on the rocky peak. I did the same painting idea with the light hitting the peak to warm it up and bring out a little more. Resized using TK’s web-sharpening/resizing action and then also cloned out the white strip near bottom right. Oh, I also selectively reduced the blue/cyan in the haze along the treeline. I like the look and effect, but thought the blue/cyan was a little too much. I think even without seeing the raw file, I think there is great potential with this Rockies mountain landscape.
While both are well done, compositionally I prefer the first. I would second Lon’s suggestion about cropping out the river in the top image. I find it pulls my eye to it and stops my progression through the image. But I am quite enjoying layers front to back, rocks, shore, trees then ridges out to the mountain.
I prefer the second image. The first image is, to me at least, a bit more clicheish, less original. I like Lon’s rework of the second image. In that rework I would raise the darks in the trees a bit, bring back the definition in the clouds that existed in the original, and crop the bottom still further to the dark gravel (or burn in the light gravel at the very bottom).
Nathan, I did an 8 day photo trip to the Lake Louise / Icefields Parkway / Yoho area in mid-September of this year. I had rain, snow, fog, and mainly overcast days, with only 2 legitimate sunrises of out 8 days. But I had a wonderful time. You are right, the Canadian Rockies have such dynamic weather in fall, you just have to be willing to roll with it, and you will come away happy.
Of the two images, I prefer the second. The first image has a very unusual, but creative composition. However, as presented, I think the sky is not strong enough to warrant including that much of it. And including this much sky makes the center mountain look less impressive IMO. I would like this image more if about half of the sky were cropped away, i think it would draw more attention to the center mountain,
In the second image, the mountain just looks so bold and dynamic. I also like having the mist shrouded distant mountains to the left and right. I usually agree with @Lon_Overacker comments, but in this case I like having the river. I think it adds a nice splash of color, and i think it creates more of a sense of depth in the scene. My only suggestion would be to decrease the luminosity in the sky, and restore some detail in the clouds
I really like @Lon_Overacker’s rework of the second image, but I think I agree with @Ed_McGuirk about leaving the water in. . I think I would crop the first image to make the central mountain more dominant. JMHO
This is a great discussion and it’s great to get others point of view. I was definitely torn between including the water or not. I definitely think the image can work with both but the story changes with the inclusion v exclusion. I found that the biggest hang up with including the river were the horizontal lines but in person the colour of the water is amazing hence my post.
With the vertical composition I had originally included both banks of the river in the 3:2 aspect ratio but cropped to 5:4 to only include the far bank.
Thanks for the revision Lon and Michael. Lon your attention to details in processing is amazing!
So in summary I think I agree with the removing the water and making the image about the mountains, forest and atmosphere. I have other images which feature the water and I can present them in a series.
