Hey folks
I like this composition, but am finding the angle of the light quite challenging, washing out the sky.
I have tried to darken and deepen the sky’s blue.
Would like to see your impressions!
DSC_1267.NEF (28.9 MB)
DSC_1267.NEF.xmp (65.9 KB)
This file is licensed Creative Commons, By-Attribution, Share-Alike.
My take on it.
I did 2 main things:
A rough edit that may need more careful masking, but I really liked the blue and wanted to bring it out more.
A beautiful image, so I have done very little to it. A slight compression of the dynamic range and tried to squeeze a bit more detail from the darkest parts. Done with Filmulator, Enfuse & GIMP.
Loved seeing the different artistic interpretations!
- color balance on the snow to bring back a bit of colors in the sky, but I toned it down to get back a bit of the sunset.
- Add a second exposure compensation instance on the sun part that is overexposed to under expose it a bit with a big gradient mask. This allows to bring back a bit of the cloud texture.
I really like what you have done with this @Oleastre.
I played with the WB also, but chose to go with the bluish look.
Looking at yours, I might play with the pale winter sunset look also.
Thanks!
Nice!
Beautiful. I’m going to play with this.
Thanks!
Is that the original sky? Or did you replace the sky? I’m struggling to even restore the small highlight portion where clouds are visible near the mountain crest at the center-right of the image.
I did cheat… used the watermark module…should have noted that… the sky comes from ON1… if it is free I will add it… I will have to check. I have ON1 and some of the stuff is part of the software….
You can use any sky… I like to add them and drop the opacity if the sky is blown…
I could go back and target that part…. If you use filmic and hit it with a lot of bloom you can smooth it out…. Not sure if that is enough…. I also sort of took the blue out of it but you might want that…
But this is then no longer photography and turns into art.
By that definition is there still “photography” in the digital age… look at any of our playraw posts… given the same starting point the output varies dramatically often not fully resembling the starting point even when people are only trying to create “nice” faithful renditions …so are they all art or are some still photography and who draws the line in the sand…
I disagree… developing a raw image… versus copy/pasting a sky from another picture… is not just a line in the sand… I’ll stop so we don’t derail this thread with an off topic conversation…
I agree. Please feel free to move my comment and yours to a new post if you think there should be any follow up or sharing… ( am not sure how to do it or I would) As I see it tools like retouch, liquify etc etc dramatically distort things…they may use the original pixels but the result is entirely modified. If you move a tree or remove a tree from within to me its not much different that being able to include some external pixels and blend them in. Once you begin on a series of local edits the global relationship of the original pixels is broken. There is the art that you capture and then the art that you make. I suppose you could make a red car blue or you paste in blue car… its all a bit of semantics to me if you try to come up with a separate definition. For me the idea of photography stops when the shutter is pressed… photography is the skill and act of the capture, after that it is all digital pixel pushing which alters the capture in some way to create an image that pleases the “developer” and it is now their art… Its only my opinion and worth nothing and I see your point that combining images might be seen as no longer developing but creating. My point is the tools used to “develop” also rework the image dramatically making the original capture into a secondary artform… feel free to move or hide or disregard this post
Thanks for sharing @Thomas_Do.
I really liked the tone curve you use! I’ve saved it as a preset 
