Forest Scene - Critique and input needed

[Brownbear]

I'm sharing these with the hope to receive some feedback as to whether I can make this scene work and/or if I should revisit this spot and just focus on one part of the scene.

I haven't cropped the images (other than a wee bit of straightening) because whenever I try a crop, I'm still not sure.

The scene is beautiful but perhaps it is too wide a view and/or the subject is not clear? Also because the morning light comes from above it creates some interesting shadows which look beautiful in real life but during processing I'm inclined to lift the shadows. (#1 on the left side, a lot and #2 to a lessor extent)

For the 1st image I'm wondering if a better approach for quality might be to combine two exposures in Lightroom's HDR (or blend in Photoshop CC). This image was clipped at both ends of the histogram but processing from raw seemed to work fine, albeit I can see some spikes in the histogram and some grain in the dark shadows at 100% viewing, so I'm wondering which is a better approach for best image quality.

1.



2.



In summary, the scene is beautiful but something isn't working for me.

Thank you in advance.

[Shadowman]

The subject works for me for a couple of reasons: it's a nice looking landscape, good reflection image, good looking shapes, and the colors are nice. The only thing that stands out is the warmth of the reflected water, it pulls my eyes downward when perhaps they should be scanning the horizon. Try flipping the image around and see if anything strikes you as off putting.

[Mike Buckley]

I like both images but prefer the second one but only because I'm especially fond of asymmetry. If these images were mine, I would slightly increase the mid-tone contrast purely as a matter of personal taste rather than to suggest that your treatment is inadequate.

In summary, the scene is beautiful but something isn't working for me.

I wonder if it comes down to the possibility that you often enjoy experiencing a physical scene more than viewing a photo of it. Despite that you have become a very accomplished photographer, that's perfectly understandable. Show me the best photo of the Grand Canyon and I'll better it by going to the Grand Canyon just to experience it.

[Polar01]

Christina it seems to have been awhile, since seeing a post from brownbear, and it is a nice one, see you are still trying your hand at landscapes.
First I am going to make a couple of suggestions that work for me. You stated that you had clipping at both ends, if that clipping is in the clouds and is it not much who cares the clouds are white anyways. If it is in the blacks, I tend to clip more there to give the image a strong black (some will not let the blacks clip at all), it tends to my eye to make the other colours pop more. I feel that the image is overall too bright, I reworked your image to how I would have done it in post. I myself tend to overexpose an image then pull it back (darken it), where most want to pull (brighten it). As you will see I have darken the image somewhat to my ideas of what I would have done.
If you do not approve of what I have done, just ask me to remove it, no problem.

Cheers: Allan



For some reason the image here looks a lot brighter than the one what I saw on my screen when applying the adjustment. Something funny going on, just darken another version by 2-stops, when posted it was exactly the same as the previous posted one which appears the same as Christina's as you can see.
I think I figured it out, I opened in ACR then into Photoshop then saved as jpeg it worked.

[Rider in the Sky]

Hi Christina, nice to see your awesome images again.

I like your 2nd image imbalance.

[Mike Buckley]

For some reason the image here looks a lot brighter than the one what I saw on my screen when applying the adjustment.

My cataloging software indicates that her version and your version have the AdobeRGB color space. If you are using a browser that is not properly managing the color space, perhaps that is the explanation. Even so, I always recommend that all photos displayed on the Internet have the sRGB color space to eliminate any problematic issues such as the situation you described.

[xpatUSA]

I'm sharing these with the hope to receive some feedback as to whether I can make this scene work and/or if I should revisit this spot and just focus on one part of the scene.

I haven't cropped the images (other than a wee bit of straightening) because whenever I try a crop, I'm still not sure.


1.




In summary, the scene is beautiful but something isn't working for me.

Thank you in advance.

Hello Christina,

Preferred the first scene. Perhaps with the waterline dead in the middle vertically one expects the lake viewpoint to be in middle horizontally - like the cliche railroad in the desert shot, eh?

As to cropping: my left eye was drawn to the big area of lighter trees at left and my right eye was drawn to the tree shadows at right. That made me look like Marty Feldman RIP, so I did some major cropping. Then I two-stage sharpened - once for local contrast and once for crisp. The scene being so dramatic, I cranked in some contrast and also lowered the green channel (!) to de-cyan the sky just a bit. La voila:




Then, just for grins:



Sorry about that . . .

[bnnrcn]

Hi Christina, both very nice scenes I agree with Allan about darkening the images as they are a bit too bright, especially the second one.Because you shot pine trees with similar colors and shapes and because the water looks very still, the scenes don't look as energetic as the landscapes with fall colors and with different shaped trees and may be with waterfalls. May be that's why you are not very satisfied with them. For me they are nice images on their own.

[joebranko]

If it is in the blacks, I tend to clip more there to give the image a strong black (some will not let the blacks clip at all), it tends to my eye to make the other colours pop more. I feel that the image is overall too bright, I reworked your image to how I would have done it in post. I myself tend to overexpose an image then pull it back (darken it), where most want to pull (brighten it). As you will see I have darken the image somewhat to my ideas of what I would have done.
.

I like the treatment Allan has used. I too prefer darker landscapes as to my eye the colours are more bold. Perhaps At the risk of seeming to hyjack your post, I can request Allan to comment on why he over exposed and then darkens as opposed to just underexposing.? I apologise if asking Allan a question in your thread is inappropriate.

[Manfred M]

A very, very nice image Christina. I prefer the second and all it needs is a tiny bit of help in PP. The image is just a tad flat and the sky could use to be a bit darker.



1. Set the black point and white point (gives the image more "pop").

2. Add a bit more contrast;

3. Add a gradient to bring out the sky and dodge out the dark trees to preserve shadow detail; and

4. Add a slight vignette.

[MrB]

Perhaps there could be a bit more emphasis of the differences in the image - the trees in shadow a bit darker and the trees in light a bit more vivid; the reality brighter, sharper and more contrasty, compared with reflections that are darker and softer. If it were mine, I would also make the overall colour balance a bit warmer.

E.g.


Cheers.
Philip

[Brownbear]

Jeez, tons of feedback and so much to think about but as always especially helpful. Thank you to all!

John - Thank you for your kind words and feedback. Flipping the images makes me dizzy. I will add an edit with cooler tones.

Mike - Especially encouraging words to hear from you, and for a landscape. Thank you so much. I did increase the midtone contrast in both, but in my edit I've added a little more but it did make my histogram a little spiky. I'm seeing the difference mid tone contrast adds, and trying to find a balance as I continue to learn to post process.

Also thank you for pointing out the colour space. I don't know how that happens to me. I had everything set to sRGB and I've double checked LR and Adobe CC to find both were set as sRGB, but in Adobe CC I clicked the setting which asks to convert the image to the set working colour space and sure enough when I opened my images it converted them to sRGB...

Binnur - Thank you as always. In my edits I forgot to adjust the brightness but I can see the difference from everyone's examples and will keep this in mind as I continue on my journey of learning and finding my vision. Fall colours in the forests close to where I live are almost non-existant.

Vic - Thank you.

Joe - I post to learn and if someone else can learn as a result of my posts I think that is a wonderful thing! So ask away! And always feel welcome to do so on my threads.

Allan - Thank you so much for taking the time to explain and demonstrate an edit. The blacks were clipped and I adjusted the black point to minimize the clipping, and lifted the shadows... The highlights were just very high on the right but not clipped. I like your edit and can see the difference. Yes, I'm still working on my landscapes and improving but not where I want to be with them yet.

Ted -
Thank you kindly for advising and for demonstrating with your edit. I can see the difference and it is helpful to see. The last one made me laugh and exceedingly dizzy. I like the crop and tried a composition like that but I couldn't fit in the trees (too, tall). Next time I will try shooting with a vertical orientation or perhaps a stitched panorama.

Thank you to all. I feel better about these images and have a better sense of what they should be. Truly appreciated.

[Brownbear]

Manfred,

Thank you kindly. Truly helpful and appreciated. Although the shadowed trees are a bit black for me I can see the difference and the pop in your edit, and will work on this. I know the blacks weren't true but I was trying to avoid clipping the shadows in the dark areas, and I'll try another edit on my own time with truer blacks. And I should also start experimenting with vignettes.

Philip,

Also thank you kindly as per my expression of appreciation to Manfred. Yes, I think that is a great point. The scene at hand was quite contrasty and likely why I've been so lost about how these should look.

Here are some edits, based on the feedback I've received - except on later on I will review taking in Manfred's and your advice.

1. Added mid tone contrast/lowered brightness



2. Added mid tone contrast/lowered brightness (different shot from same set)




3. Different image with a cooler WB as per John (Shadowman)... It doesn't truly show the sunlight on the trees but...


Edited to lower brightness, and I can see a positive difference.

Thanks to all!

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Thank you kindly. Truly helpful and appreciated. Although the shadowed trees are a bit black for me I can see the difference and the pop. I know the blacks weren't true but I was trying to avoid clipping the shadows in the dark areas, and I'll try another edit on my own time with truer blacks. And I should also start experimenting with vignettes.

Christina - I literally spent about 5 minutes on the shot and didn't try working it all that hard. The dark trees are from the gradient I put in to darken the sky and frankly it is quite easy to pull back. I did check my output and there is no clipping or loss of shadow detail.

You can see the layers construct I used.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing. Truly appreciated. I thought my post processing skills were coming along (progressing) but I can see from this post that I've overlooked several things and that I still have a lot to learn.

Thank you.

Christina - I literally spent about 5 minutes on the shot and didn't try working it all that hard. The dark trees are from the gradient I put in to darken the sky and frankly it is quite easy to pull back. I did check my output and there is no clipping or loss of shadow detail.

You can see the layers construct I used.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

In the past, you tended to prefer to bring out the "gentle" aspects of a landscape, preferring to limit the mid-tone contrast and pop for understandable reasons. It's possible that your tastes are changing. If that's the case, you need only to ensure that your post-processing techniques accommodate the changed tastes. Developing a taste (finding your vision, as you appropriately call it) that you feel consistently comfortable with is the hard part; changing your post-processing techniques to accommodate changes in your taste is relatively easy.

[Rider in the Sky]

Christina,

In the past, you tended to prefer to bring out the "gentle" aspects of a landscape, preferring to limit the mid-tone contrast and pop for understandable reasons. It's possible that your tastes are changing. If that's the case, you need only to ensure that your post-processing techniques accommodate the changed tastes. Developing a taste (finding your vision, as you appropriately call it) that you feel consistently comfortable with is the hard part; changing your post-processing techniques to accommodate changes in your taste is relatively easy.

Mike, she's back !

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, she's back !

Yup! Let's hope she doesn't disappear for so long next time.

[Brownbear]

lol... Please don't scare Mike away. Although I was thinking about sending Mike and Manfred the raw image with a special request to send it back processed according to my vision/taste, for learning purposes, of course.

Alas, I'm just off today. These images have been nagging at me for at least two months. And of course there are others.

PS I'm a life long member of this place and when I retire hopefully Mike will still be here, too.

Mike, she's back !

[Rita]

Like others I also prefer #2. A few times I have looked at this post but couldn't figure out what was not sitting right with me.
Manfred hit the nail on the head, it just needed a little more pop. Never the less it is a beautiful scene. Is this up Mount Seymour?