Two from the Badlands

[tsjanik]

Any feedback appreciated.  I am just now foregoing film for digital and finding that a sensor doesn't quite behave like film.
645D 45-85mm at 45mm, 8 sec and 30 sec exposures

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The first one caught my attention. I would personally go for a more aggressive post-processing, but if documenting rather than interpreting is your goal, then you did a good job.

[wolfnowl]

What Slobodan said, me too...

Mike.

[RSL]

Hate to say it this way, but "+1."

[Justan]

The first one has a wonderful 3d effect. The clouds are nearly tactile.

The colors are understated. I like the restraint in this but at least on screen the image lacks punch. Minimally I’d make it a little lighter in the grasses so I can see more details. I'd also lighten the second one a little. Some color noise reduction may help the 2nd one, but at the same time, the grain adds to the scene so i wouldn't remove all of it.....

I'm sure are both great as large prints.

[tsjanik]

Thanks all.  I really want to avoid too much post processing, so perhaps I'm too conservative.  Specfic suggustions are most appreciated.  The 2nd is dark, but it was taken well after darkness and so possibly I'm influenced by what I remember rather than what might be best for the image.

Cheers,

Tom

[Justan]

> I'm influenced by what I remember rather than what might be best for the image.

That's the age old debate stated succinctly. To follow the purity of the scene or to try and appeal to.... 

Ultimately what is best for the image would depend a lot on your goals. For many, photography (and post processing) is an exploration. For others it is a vehicle - a means to an end.

[John R]

I have a Pentax K5, and it seems to me, your tone-look is pretty much what I get with my images. It looks like you have the camera set on natural tone rendition. There is also a bright tone rendition. I had the same reaction when I saw my first digital images from the Pentax K10. They looked somewhat flatter than the reality I remembered. My suggestion, if you do not want to alter the image in post processing, is to try and vary the sharpness, colour and/or brightness levels, as well as the tone setting and see if you like it better or that it more closely resembles what you saw. And if you are in doubt, shoot a duplicate at the default settings and then compare them. I only shoot jpegs, so if you are shooting raw, this could alter what I just wrote.

By the way, I like the images, especially the first. I am reasonably certain that the light in the first image should appear brighter as I have similar images with this type of light. Not a lot more, but definitely more, and with a little more luminosity. I had to adjust mine a bit and one could say this is just me being subjective and trying to improve the image, but that is my feeling. Also, I am somewhat taken aback by the almost square format of the 4X5. For me it takes a little getting used to and appears to give the foreground more dominance in the balance of the image.

[Peter McLennan]

Thanks all.  I really want to avoid too much post processing, so perhaps I'm too conservative.  Specfic suggustions are most appreciated. 

For the first image:
I'd go for more contrast in both the foreground and the middle distance.  I'd lighten up the extreme foreground grasses considerably and go for more differentiation between the bands of colour in the middle distance. 

Is the highlight in the sky clipped?  If it was, I'd try to either recover that area, or clone some adjacent clouds into the "hole".

Superb conditions, beautifully shot.  Well worth a little post processing.