Open Fire + Repost

The minute I looked at this, I thought HDR and then I saw it was a two exposure blend. I'm not against HDR at all and use it from time to time, but I always try to make it look natural. Here the light foreground looks strange against the darker sky. I think there's a lot you can do here to make this image work. I'd start with darkening the foreground but add more contrast to the trees to keep some detail there.

I really like this one. Looks like the colors in the sky were great, and the simple comp does well to show it off. If I am correct, this is one of many images from Girraween National Park. Your photos have proven it to be a beautiful location!

No nits here. I can see the fg is fairly bright (well, I wasn't standing there to see it in person), but think it fits this scene well. Even if it is a little unnatural (I'm not wanting to start anything ), I personally don't mind a little artisticness/manipulation in an image, so long as it doesn't dramatically change the scene. Hope I'm making sense... Anyways, thanks for sharing this great photo!

That's an awesome sky but the foreground/midground aren't nearly as compelling. I like the distant trees but feel this needs more of a visual anchor, either with a strong foreground element or some sort of leading lines, etc., that take the viewer through the scene. It's certainly a decent shot though and I'll bet a print of this attracts some attention because of the sky. Lastly, darkening the foreground a bit, as Dan suggested, would probably be worth trying.

This is nice too. Gosh, the sky really is on fire!

Hmmmm, do I detect a hint of sarcasm there? I too have had some spectacularly popular posts myself

I like the spectacularly popular one, but like this one better. maybe it shall be overwhelmingly popular? I didn't get the sense that this looked hdrish to my eye.

Chris

Thank you guy's for your honest feedback

@Dan & Phil - Thank you! - I've included a version with a darkened fg, and I think it does has a better balance. Any better?? or should go darker??

@Chris - Yeah, just a whisper of sarcasm - just a bit of fun

@Dan - this is actually pretty much a single shot, just an extra exposure for the bright sky on the right. I've included the RAW image with ACR defaults with +60 on exposure and +40 on contrast. So not really a big HDR job, but I appreciate your opinion on how it actually looks, which is the real point anyway, so I've tried to compensate for that with the darker fg version. Cheers!

I don't know if it is just me, but your second repost does seem more natural but that may not have been you intent.... I do like the sky better in your original post as well as the highlights in the foreground. I do prefer your original post over either reposts.

I do prefer the repost with the darkened foreground. Just about right I'd say. Interesting...I would have expected the RAW file to look different, with a greater difference in brightness between the sky and foreground.

Hi David, Been looking at both versions here for a little bit now and I like your repost better myself. The little bit darker fg seems to work better to my eye. That is an awesome looking sky!

Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI

I prefer the darker foreground too David, although in your raw post there _is_ an amazing brightness to the foreground (more than I would have expected). I love the sky (although you might play with dropping the saturation of the blue just a tad). I'm wrestling with the stream; I wish there were a little more or a little less. If there were more, it would help fill out and complement the foreground, but as is it's just visible enough to steal my eye from the show above. Mostly nits, overall a great show!