evening Spa

[SmartWombat]

From the Thermal baths looking down overhte town.
Is the central horizon line a problem?

[photo101]

According to my non-technical expertise, I think it looks ok with the centerline horizon.

The second picture looks too grainy for my liking.

[MB1]

I like the top image the best, I like it better with about 20% cropped off the top. Cropping the sky will make it a lot easier to see/notice all the detail you have below the horizon.

[Overbeyond]

Yes a crop from the top but I think seeing more of that track in the foreground might have been interesting.
The second one is very grainy/noisy indeed.
Tom

[livin4lax09]

in the first one, include the track! leading lines are very important, and that will make this photo so much more interesting!

[Coastal Flyer]

Wombat,

Can't add anything to the comments already posted but do have a question: is the green spot in the bottom photo a bit of lens flare? There is a bright green spot along the main trunk of the tree about a third of the way down and I am not sure what it is. Just wondering.

CF

[Ronnoco]

Both need post-processing in the area of colour correction. There is not enough colour and detail in either of these photos. Software filters can create a completely different photo with considerable more colour/fall punch.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

I like # 1 better. The second is tilted a bit. I don't feel that the lower definition of the trees in #1 is a negative. # 1 just feels more natural to me. The path leading down is a BIG plus -- so dont lose it! The colors are soft and relaxing. I think it's great for what it is.
GB

[Ronnoco]

I like # 1 better. The colors are soft and relaxing. I think it's great for what it is.
GB

Ah, what colours? I did not spot a very red tree in the middle ground until I did some major adjustments.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Ah, what colours? I did not spot a very red tree in the middle ground until I did some major adjustments.

Ronnoco

The very soft warm color in the sky near the horizon. It's subtle alright, but there.

[Ronnoco]

The very soft warm color in the sky near the horizon. It's subtle alright, but there.

The track leading from the foreground toward the town as the centre of interest is where there should be better colour and detail. The "subtle" colours of the sky are due to slight over-exposure, particularly to the right side.

In the original shot, a graduated neutral density filter or an enhanced polarizer would have helped. I tried and found that software filters also work at this point to add detail and colour to the central areas.

Ronnoco

[SmartWombat]

I can't remember if the polariser was on for this shot, I think so.
But what do you mean by enhanced polariser?

The colours are pretty much as they appeared to the eye - at least on my monitor in Fine Picture mode, but it's uncalibrated. We are almost certianly seeing different things.

I'll work on it, in the area of the track first.
Currently it's just as it came out of lightroom's raw to jpeg conversion.

[Ronnoco]

I can't remember if the polariser was on for this shot, I think so.
But what do you mean by enhanced polariser?

The colours are pretty much as they appeared to the eye - at least on my monitor in Fine Picture mode, but it's uncalibrated. We are almost certianly seeing different things.

I'll work on it, in the area of the track first.
Currently it's just as it came out of lightroom's raw to jpeg conversion.

An enhanced polarizer is a combination of an enhancement filter which is pretty neutral but very slightly on the magenta side to enhance colour, combined with a polarizer to enhance sky colour and reduce glare.

Now, you said that the colours were pretty much as they appeared to the eye, but I do not see the reds in your photo that I see in this edit. If you put the two images side by side you see a considerable difference. If you get the British magazine: Practical Photography, you will see landscapes with the same colour as my edit, but even toned down a little, it still has more punch than the original.

My constructive suggestion is to look closely at colour in post processing and look at the magazines to see what is being published and apparently accepted as the standard in landscape and nature shooting.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Ronnoco - It's natural for one's color vision to decrease as light receeds.. that's why we basically see black and white at night (pods vs cones thing). Not sure why, but film (and apparently CCDs) appear to be balanced for that also.

I think your edit is interesting, but I find it more like a painting. Paul's is more photography. Both have their merits. Your e. polarizer edit almost seems like a fantasy book's cover. The only thing I dont like with it is the added grain.

GB

[Ronnoco]

Ronnoco - It's natural for one's color vision to decrease as light receeds.. that's why we basically see black and white at night (pods vs cones thing). Not sure why, but film (and apparently CCDs) appear to be balanced for that also.

I think your edit is interesting, but I find it more like a painting. Paul's is more photography. Both have their merits. Your e. polarizer edit almost seems like a fantasy book's cover. The only thing I dont like with it is the added grain.

GB

Well the "grain" which seems more like artifacts and perhaps pixelation is a result of working on an already compressed 8 bit photo. I usually edit in 16 bit and only compress for posting. It is a very solvable problem if you are working from the original

If you look at Popular Photography or Adobe Publishers you would realize that in your view at least "paintings" and "fantasy book covers" have become both the norm and the standard for landscape photography. As Photo-John has indicated as well, post-processing is also standard. My edits reflect these norms and standards.

Ronnoco