Please post no more than five images a day and respond to as many images as you post. Critics, please be constructive, specific, and nice! Moderated by gahspidy and mtbbrian.
By posting on the Photo Critique forum you agree to post only your own photos, be respectful, and give back as much as you receive. This is a moderated forum and anything abusive or
off-topic will be removed.
"I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
Aldo Leopold
I vote for without the stars. I like the lighting in the first one better and think it is much cleaner, crisper shot. I'm debating if it need a little cropped of the top or not. The one with the stars looks much grainier to me. Nice shot, Jeff
Check out my websiteHere My Nikon D7000 Tips thread is HERE
All images posted by me anywhere are Copyrighted by Federal Law and may not be copied or used in ANY FORM without my personal written permission.Jeff Impey "I decided years ago I was only going to have two types of days...Very Good Daysor just Plain Good DaysI just refuse to have Bad Ones!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Without, for sure. The lighting makes this shot and says something. Did you get that effect with the camera or with the computer? If with the computer, please tell us how it is done.
Thanks Jef! I'm not sure what you mean by the lighting being different in the first image. With the exception of cloning out the stars, they are the exact same image.
Thanks for your input Greg.
Thanks Ron. The lighting was done in camera. It's basically light pollution coming from a farm or town beyond the hill in the distance mixed with clouds moving through they sky during the 7 minute exposure.
Thanks again everyone for taking the time to comment.
"I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
Aldo Leopold
Thanks Jef! I'm not sure what you mean by the lighting being different in the first image. With the exception of cloning out the stars, they are the exact same image.
Thanks again everyone for taking the time to comment.
To me the light behind the tree is brighter and the limbs have more contrast and are sharper. The second one looks a little washed out compared to the first one, Jeff
Check out my websiteHere My Nikon D7000 Tips thread is HERE
All images posted by me anywhere are Copyrighted by Federal Law and may not be copied or used in ANY FORM without my personal written permission.Jeff Impey "I decided years ago I was only going to have two types of days...Very Good Daysor just Plain Good DaysI just refuse to have Bad Ones!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Yes, I see it, too, Gramps. The problems with those special effects in PS and other programs is they tend to degrade the entire image slightly. I can even see a difference in the nose on the church in the second picture, which is why I think it is important to put most of our attention toward when the shutter is pressed, instead of in the processing afterwards.
Thanks for the explanation Jeff. I do see it now on the uploaded versions. When I turn off the cloned out layer in my original file, I don't see anything but the stars change. Either way, my wife and I both like the version without the stars the best and that's what I'm ordering a print of.
"I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
Aldo Leopold