I loved the shapes of the pine trees on the distant hill with sunrise behind them.
Specific Feedback Requested
Anything
Technical Details
ISO 100, 300mm (450 equivalent), 1/250, f6.3, cropped
1 Like
Hi Vanessa,
Yes, I think the tree tops are interesting - in fact I like both lines of trees and the interactin between them. Works well that the farther ridge rise above the foreground trees that have a dip.
The sky looks like it was quite colorful, and I wasn’t there to witness so I’m not sure how this actually looked.
To me, this is a little flat, murkey, not quite sure how to describe. Now the atmosphere could have been just exactly this, I don’t know. Even if this is reality, I think if indeed the trees are what prompted the capture of this image, I do think you could work on the contrast.
I’m not sure if this fits your experience, but I just did a quick adjustment of contrast and a boost in vibrance to bring out the colors in the sky. Again, may or may not fit your vision and experience of the scene. But I do think it needs a little boost. Oh, cropped a little bit off the left.
2 Likes
Wow, Lon! I really like what you did with this! I don’t know why I’m always so obsessed with keeping the colors exactly as they were when I saw it. I think I just don’t want it to end up looking fake. But this looks great, so much more vibrant and no one is going to know what it actually was like anyway! 
I also like that slight crop off the left better it makes the hill look more like it’s in the right place. Thank you for your help and feedback!
1 Like
This is actually very normal! There’s nothing wrong, and most folks want to render a scene as they think they saw and experienced. And even more, don’t want their images to come across as fake, “photoshopped”, etc. So there is a fine line in there somewhere.
I had some prints hanging in a gallery showing at a winery one time. And it’s always interesting to hear patrons comment on the work. When I heard a comment like “oh, that’s just photoshopped…” it’s kind of hard to hear those comments - and they were right in the sense that the particular print was just a bit too saturated and colors a little beyond what were believeable. That’s the struggle, I think, in finding that right balance.
And… keep in mind there’s a big difference between what we, the mind and eye saw and experienced, VS. what was captured in the camera - or as it were, on film. There are some who tried to replicate what was returned from the lab on film which to me wasn’t reality either. Nowaday’s, most everyone knows that RAW images out of the camera are not reality either and so we’re all left in processing to reach something that we think we saw and remembered or experienced.
Lastly, I continue to fall back on so many of Tony Kuyper’s philosophies and have always enjoyed this one. Paraphrasing, “… let the image take you where IT wants to go.” Ok, so we know images are inanimate objects; no feelings… so “they” can’t decide anything… but the message is, let go of your own mind and have the freedom to process an image to whatever end works for you - but back to your comment, don’t limit yourself to any thought that the image must be a certain way.
Hope that makes sense!
Lon
2 Likes
Thanks for explaining all that! Yes, it does make sense!
Very nice scene – nicely seen!!
I think “murky” is the operative word here, in terms of something that needs to be corrected. The problem is that when we see an image on our monitor, especially one we shot ourselves, our perception does a degree of auto-correct, but a viewer of a print or online image doesn’t have that bias of knowing the original scene. That’s why letting an image sit for a while is a good idea – you can see it with somewhat new eyes.
We have a great “contrast meter” now with the histogram, as well as an exposure meter. In this case it shows underexposure as well as low contrast (not much spread in the tones). Sometimes that can be a desired representation, but it often isn’t. Lon spread out the histogram, which added life to the image, but left some underexposure to suggest after sunset.
2 Likes
I agree with the Murky definition - and it might benefit from a b/w conversion. I’m also not totally sure you need all that sky here as it does not seem to add much to the image, but that’s just me. I like the feel of this though -quite ominous!
1 Like
Thanks @Diane_Miller and @Matt_Payne for your feedback and critiques! I really appreciate it. I actually was trying to keep what colors were left in the sky as they were fleeting because the sun was already coming up through the trees. So I actually was working on the contrast to make the foreground trees and trees on the ridge stand out more but still try to keep the hint of purple and pink that was still in the sky. But I was amazed how @Lon_Overacker was able to bring out orange which was a color earlier that morning! That’s funny that you think ominous @Matt_Payne ! It actually was a really beautiful day! I guess if I cropped more then the trees would be more prominent. Or I could always do your favorite technique @Matt_Payne 'sky replacement '! 
Just kidding, I don’t even have the tools to do it but I’ve heard a few of your podcasts and you crack me up when you go off about it! 
1 Like
Haha.
I can see how it was beautiful for sure!