Summertime in Northern-Norway (X-T20 & 14mm f2.8)

I also like the first version the best.

Vistaview wrote:

I'm in the minority here, but in my opinion, your original images have more appeal than the ones with the lightened foregrounds.

Vista,

You are entirely correct in that it is a matter of taste.  I'm not sure if I would have lightened the foreground as I talked about.  It all depends.  I have shot as bazillion landscapes like that and sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.  One of the problems with post processing as that we (certainly I am guilty of this) often over-process images, or just automatically lift shadows that don't need to be lifted.

It is a judgement call concerning what you like and what is appealing.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Scott770 wrote:

I also like the first version the best.

I do too in this case.  When I gave the little tutorial it was with the knowledge that I was not in possession of the RAW file so could not play with it.  I like the original better.  But it is a matter of taste and opinion.  But it is true that we too often lift shadows that don't necessarily need to be lifted.  I am often guilty of that.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

I think they look superb as posted.

edorf_71 wrote:

Pan50 wrote:

I just bought an exensive Wine Country Camera filter system so I wouldn’t have to mess with too much post etc. I think a two stop grad on some of these shots would have helped. Otherwise they look great! That 14mm is a great lens, I need to use mine more often!

Thanks! I dont have a grad nd filter but will lighten in lr later when on desktop pc and calibrated monitor.

Very nice. They convey those moments quite well, IMO. The first particularly moves me. If those strong blown highlights in those few bother you, there are field techniques one might utilize to tame them further, but all in all - good work.   I like your instincts on these presentations.

Greg7579 wrote:

Scott770 wrote:

I also like the first version the best.

I do too in this case. When I gave the little tutorial it was with the knowledge that I was not in possession of the RAW file so could not play with it. I like the original better. But it is a matter of taste and opinion. But it is true that we too often lift shadows that don't necessarily need to be lifted. I am often guilty of that.

What you said was:

You can greatly improve these in post because they are high dynamic range shots and you need to play with the five tone-mapping sliders in LR to bring the images out.

These foregrounds must pop more while not blowing out the bright spots in the sky.

Why don't you ask for the RAW to be made available, and show us all how you'd greatly improve upon it?

Bob, I think you are misreading my intent and the sequence of the posts. I saw the images and complemented them. They are very nice work, especially in composition and his good eye - nice scenes that begged to be captured.

My only comment was on the post processing and it wasn't negative.

I mentioned that one could do a lot with the RAW image in shot like that. You can go a lot of directions because there are 8 or 10 stops of DR range in that image.

I explained what I thought might work on the image that could (maybe) help it. The OP thanked me and gave it another attempt and posted another JPEG export from RAW, opening up the foreground a stop or two and who knows what else. He probably played with the temp and colors too, which is fine. I didn't like the result when I saw it and thought the original was actually better. Others said so and I agreed.

I wasn't in some way backtracking on my advice.

It is hard to say exactly what one would do in LR to improve an image unless you have the RAW file, and even then pro photographers with years of post-processing experience can disagree on the results. LR and PS provide huge power over landscape images and there is almost nothing that can't be manipulated in that regard.

You know that the results of post-processing are often disagreed on by photographers with varied tastes. Some will say "beautiful." Others will say "plastic" or "over-processed".

I have edited hundreds of thousands (half a million?) RAW images in LR and PS. Early on I attended workshops and seminars and completed countless tutorials and books on LR and PS. I worked hard to learn how to do it and I'm still learning.

So I don't mind sharing a few tricks or ideas on what might improve an image in LR. If I had that RAW, there is a strong probability I could do some things to it in PS and LR that would likely improve it, at least in my eye. But I don't know that for sure.

Read my posts again. I think you are over-reacting. You act like I'm abusing the poor OP. I'm just trying to help the guy.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Les Lammers wrote:

I think they look superb as posted.

edorf_71 wrote:

Pan50 wrote:

I just bought an exensive Wine Country Camera filter system so I wouldn’t have to mess with too much post etc. I think a two stop grad on some of these shots would have helped. Otherwise they look great! That 14mm is a great lens, I need to use mine more often!

Thanks! I dont have a grad nd filter but will lighten in lr later when on desktop pc and calibrated monitor.

Thanks Les! Glad you liked them.

Bob Tullis wrote:

Very nice. They convey those moments quite well, IMO. The first particularly moves me. If those strong blown highlights in those few bother you, there are field techniques one might utilize to tame them further, but all in all - good work. I like your instincts on these presentations.

Thanks Bob! I could have used a grad nd-filter on these but didn't have that at my disposal. Used a 10-stop nd with those. I like it to look 'natural' and close to reality in my shots and dont go for too much of a hdr-look. Less is more

Bob Tullis wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Scott770 wrote:

I also like the first version the best.

I do too in this case. When I gave the little tutorial it was with the knowledge that I was not in possession of the RAW file so could not play with it. I like the original better. But it is a matter of taste and opinion. But it is true that we too often lift shadows that don't necessarily need to be lifted. I am often guilty of that.

What you said was:

You can greatly improve these in post because they are high dynamic range shots and you need to play with the five tone-mapping sliders in LR to bring the images out.

These foregrounds must pop more while not blowing out the bright spots in the sky.

Why don't you ask for the RAW to be made available, and show us all how you'd greatly improve upon it?

Hi Bob, no offence was taken with reg to Greg's advice and thoughts. I am more than capable of deciding what my shots should look like :p. Its just another opinion/advice. Nothing more nothing less.

edorf_71 wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Very nice. They convey those moments quite well, IMO. The first particularly moves me. If those strong blown highlights in those few bother you, there are field techniques one might utilize to tame them further, but all in all - good work. I like your instincts on these presentations.

Thanks Bob! I could have used a grad nd-filter on these but didn't have that at my disposal. Used a 10-stop nd with those. I like it to look 'natural' and close to reality in my shots and dont go for too much of a hdr-look. Less is more

I hear that.   Or rather the way I see it, once the novelty of the potential of HDR becomes normal/routine, it's the ability to reveal deep shadows as one calls for it that remains, as opposed to revealing it routinely because one can.   Especially for darker exposures the balance can be a delicate one.

Greg7579 wrote:

Bob, I think you are misreading my intent and the sequence of the posts. I saw the images and complemented them. They are very nice work, especially in composition and his good eye - nice scenes that begged to be captured.

My only comment was on the post processing and it wasn't negative.

I mentioned that one could do a lot with the RAW image in shot like that. You can go a lot of directions because there are 8 or 10 stops of DR range in that image.

I explained what I thought might work on the image that could (maybe) help it. The OP thanked me and gave it another attempt and posted another JPEG export from RAW, opening up the foreground a stop or two and who knows what else. He probably played with the temp and colors too, which is fine. I didn't like the result when I saw it and thought the original was actually better. Others said so and I agreed.

I wasn't in some way backtracking on my advice.

It is hard to say exactly what one would do in LR to improve an image unless you have the RAW file, and even then pro photographers with years of post-processing experience can disagree on the results. LR and PS provide huge power over landscape images and there is almost nothing that can't be manipulated in that regard.

You know that the results of post-processing are often disagreed on by photographers with varied tastes. Some will say "beautiful." Others will say "plastic" or "over-processed".

I have edited hundreds of thousands (half a million?) RAW images in LR and PS. Early on I attended workshops and seminars and completed countless tutorials and books on LR and PS. I worked hard to learn how to do it and I'm still learning.

So I don't mind sharing a few tricks or ideas on what might improve an image in LR. If I had that RAW, there is a strong probability I could do some things to it in PS and LR that would likely improve it, at least in my eye. But I don't know that for sure.

Read my posts again. I think you are over-reacting. You act like I'm abusing the poor OP. I'm just trying to help the guy.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Hi Greg. I don't feel abused, not offenced or anything  I appreciate advice and thoughts as I'm willing to learn and want to know what others think of my, in this case, pictures. Nothing right or wrong just different and thats ok.