Dreamy Sunset

[riverrat66]

I shot this in south central Missouri.  Several spring fed streams, nice area to be in during this drought.

[Chairman Bill]

Nice shot, though the foreground seems over-exposed, and there's a dark band running around the tops of the trees.

[eleanorbrown]

Agree, it is very obvious where you have burned the sky and/or dodged the foreground. beautiful colors tho. Eleanor

Nice shot, though the foreground seems over-exposed, and there's a dark band running around the tops of the trees.

[riverrat66]

I was trying to blend two photos.  I think I'll try HDR.  There has got to be a better way than I did it.  Do you know any better ways?  Thanks for the help.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I think I'll try HDR.  There has got to be a better way than I did it.  Do you know any better ways?  Thanks for the help.

Please do not. There is absolutely nothing in the shadows worth opening that much. The attraction of the image lies in the sky color and its reflection in the river. There is nothing in the shadows worth revealing. The left bank gravel competes for attention with the river reflections and adds nothing compositionally, so leave it in the shade. Human perception expects to see the trees darker than the sky, so leave it so. The only reason to open the shadows a bit would be to avoid a total black splotch.

[Justan]

Slobodan’s comments are good. Also, without using HDR or 2 images, you might try try adding a multiply layer on the water and sky.

Really nice shot!

[JohnKoerner]

I would also clone the telephone wire out of the image ...


.

[eleanorbrown]

Good points however I do like the colors and reflections of the sky in the river. Eleanor

Please do not. There is absolutely nothing in the shadows worth opening that much. The attraction of the image lies in the sky color and its reflection in the river. There is nothing in the shadows worth revealing. The left bank gravel competes for attention with the river reflections and adds nothing compositionally, so leave it in the shade. Human perception expects to see the trees darker than the sky, so leave it so. The only reason to open the shadows a bit would be to avoid a total black splotch.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I would also clone the telephone wire out of the image ...

Good catch, John, and welcome back!

[JohnKoerner]

 

[mkuhns]

To fis the dark band over the trees I would either run it through an HDR program and the overlay that onto your current exposure and blend to fit. Or work on your layer blending in the current image and darken all of the trees to avoid that distracting shift. The eye will accept a lot, as long as it's consistent.

[KevinA]

I would just like to see from one of the exposures made and not the composite blend. That way you would have all the tones of light and shade in order, I don't think it needs an extended DR. I think the HDR look is a special effect and should be used as an exception, the current trend is to try and show detail in everything and it's a trap some fall into.

Kevin.

[stamper]

I was trying to blend two photos.  I think I'll try HDR.  There has got to be a better way than I did it.  Do you know any better ways?  Thanks for the help.

When you have an irregular skyline especially with trees then it is difficult to combine two images. HDR won't work imo. If there is enough room in a sky then a graduated layer in PS can help. The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one. No image is better than one with processing faults?

[mkuhns]

When you have an irregular skyline especially with trees then it is difficult to combine two images. HDR won't work imo. If there is enough room in a sky then a graduated layer in PS can help. The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one. No image is better than one with processing faults?

I fervently disagree. HDR is most definitely possible with trees and a complex skyline, it is just more difficult. It requires programs to assist, or lots of time in photoshop tweaking masks with a low opacity brush. One image I worked on had a pine tree in front of the sunset, and I spent 6 hours blending it by hand. And now your hard pressed to pick out any haloing.

As for not taking a great image because you think the post processing might be too difficult? Utter nonsense and horrible advice. There are so many photoshop tutorials online you can learn what you need to get it done, or you can file the image away for the future when you will be more experienced at post (or they have new HDR programs). Don't ever let post stop you from taking a photo. The memory card doesn't cost anything to develop and the digital files won't expire.

[stamper]

Six hours? How can that possibly be good advice. I didn't suggest NOT taking an image. My suggestion was aimed at choosing one from what you had captured. That is a definite skill.....choosing the good ones from the not so good.

Quote

Utter nonsense and horrible advice.

Unquote

I see you are a newbie. Disagree with posts - as is your right - but I suggest you do it in a mannerly way.

[mkuhns]

But you did suggest not taking the image, as you said no image was better than one with processing defects.  Hate to use your words against you, but that's what you said. And frankly I just called you out because it's bad advice.

I do believe I did disagree with your post in a mannerly way, I called your advice horrible, it wasn't a personal attack on you or your character. As every artist knows just because someone doesn't like their work doesn't mean they dislike the artist as a person. Just like you not wanting to spend 6 hours in post on a photo is not a judgement of how you feel about me as an individual. I am just sensitive to people who tell new photographers not to take pictures. That's just not right in my book.

Sure I'm a newbie on the forums, never mind my years of experience, published photos, or work in galleries across the country. All rubbish

[stamper]

I will try again.

quote

The secret is to judge before hand if an image can be successfully processed and if not then pick another one.

unquote

Note the word processed ... it isn't the same as taking an image. It means to enhance an image. I gave my opinion in a mannerly way and the response wasn't  - imo - a mannerly one. If you read again reply # 12 the poster asked for a better way than using HDR and I replied in that context.

quote

Utter nonsense and horrible advice.

unquote

That isn't mannerly where I come from.....especially considering that I didn't address any comments at you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I fervently disagree. HDR is most definitely possible with trees and a complex skyline, it is just more difficult....

Just because something is technically possible, does not mean it should be used. Remember, we are talking about a specific image, the one OP posted, and, as I said above, that image needs zero HDR processing.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Sure I'm a newbie on the forums, never mind my years of experience, published photos, or work in galleries across the country...

And we are supposed to know that... how? You do not post under your real name and do not provide any links to your online presence.

[mkuhns]

I will try again as well :-)

By saying not taking an image / comp you want because you don't think it can be processed is to me, silly and bad advice. I think everyone should try to explore their photography and push their limits to learn new things.

My response was opinionated, and that opinion differed from yours. That does not make it unmannerly. Unmannerly would be for me to be a dick and attack you personally, or you to call me a noob. Thats just spite.

Me disagreeing about your opinion does not constitute unmannerly in my culture, it just makes you not one of the sheep.