Posted by Glenn Randall on March 29, 2012 at 11:36 AM
I decided I couldn't let all of you be the only ones to get out this winter, so I finally pulled myself away from the office and did a sunset shoot on Mt. Antero about two weeks ago. I'll be offering one of the following four shots as a print on my website in the next few months. Which one should I choose? Thanks for your input!
Posted by Glenn Randall on March 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Shot #2
Posted by Glenn Randall on March 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Shot #3
Posted by Glenn Randall on March 29, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Beautiful view and great conditions! Depending on your sensibilities relating to composites, you could blend the sky from #2 into the first image and get color throughout. I'm on the fence about the far right side of those two images. The view of the valley adds some character, but also pulls my eye out of the frame. I'd experiment with a crop to a 4:5 format and see if that has any positive impact.
Posted by Pam Colander on March 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM
I'd pick the first one also, but work on the sky color some more as suggested. Is that my Peaceful Valley ball cap I lost up there???
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Definitely #1!
Posted by Scott Fricke on March 29, 2012 at 5:36 PM
All really nice shots, but I'd have to go with #1!
#2 is my favorite. I also think that cropping the right by about an inch to the saddle on the far range looks a bit better.
Regardless, you came away with some fine work from here!
I'm not into the composite idea. After blending the end result would would show a scene that just doesn't happen with cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds are too high, thus you will never get foreground direct light and colorful cirrus clouds at once. Plus, I just don't see Glenn as a Composite kind of guy.
I have to admit I like #2 just a tad better than #1. When I see a shot from that altitude with #2 it gives me chills because BOY does it feel great surveying all that terrain in such soft, dynamic light. Camera sensors just love that stuff. No blending needed. From that kind of perch, I don't think there's anything better than the 20 minutes after sunset. Thus #2 it is....
Lastly, who am I to question Glenn Randle but I'm gonna suggest either warming up the WB a tad or lesson the overall Cyan.
First one for me as well. The depth really shows through on that image. I like how the foreground ridge line runs out to the background.
Posted by Glenn Randall on March 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM
First, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to comment on this group of images. I was truly on the fence which image would speak to people most evocatively. Overall, the group opinion seems to be that #1 is the pick of the litter.
Several of you hit the nail on the head: what I wanted, of course, was great light on the foreground AND on the clouds simultaneously. That didn't happen, primarily for the reasons Kane pointed out, and also because of the way the sun was moving through layered clouds with narrow bands of clear sky in between. I know I'm a bit obsessive about this, but I like to tell my customers, "What you see in my prints is what I saw through the lens." Since I didn't see that on the summit of Antero, I can't in good conscience put together #1 and #2.
As for the cyan cast Kane observed on his system: first off, Kane, you can question anything you want! I welcome your feedback. In this case, I don't see a cyan cast on my Samsung SyncMaster XL20 monitor, calibrated with a Spyder 3 Elite, with a white point of 5000K, when I look at the image in Lightroom. When I view the image in Firefox, the color seems to match the Lightroom view fairly closely. Internet Explorer is further out, but on the more saturated (too saturated) side of things, at least as viewed on my monitor. I think we probably have a situation where different monitors, calibration software and browsers have produced variations in color, rather than an actual cyan cast. I will double-check the actual prints carefully to make sure they didn't shift in that direction.
Thanks again to everyone!
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Sorry, I'm late to the party, Glenn. Been out car shopping.
Yes, I agree with #1, but sure like the pastel sky in #3.
I've been in too many similar situations recently where the best foreground and sky are 90 or 180 degrees out of phase.
Not much love for #3! I do like the depth and foreground light in #1, but I'd say #3 has by far the best sky and (to me at least) a more dramatic comp of the mountains. Nice shots!
Glenn,
Just for what I see on my Mac, I don't notice any cyan cast either. I will say I had posted an image a while ago and had a comment or two about a cyan cast as well. Of course, the image in question could have used some warming, but the color cast was fairly normal for the scene that was in the shadows. I suspect, it is an issue with our monitors and calibration as you point out. Nevertheless, I still like to hear those comments. Many times folks have noticed something I completely overlooked!
Discussion
22 repliesRegardless, you came away with some fine work from here!
I have to admit I like #2 just a tad better than #1. When I see a shot from that altitude with #2 it gives me chills because BOY does it feel great surveying all that terrain in such soft, dynamic light. Camera sensors just love that stuff. No blending needed. From that kind of perch, I don't think there's anything better than the 20 minutes after sunset. Thus #2 it is....
Lastly, who am I to question Glenn Randle but I'm gonna suggest either warming up the WB a tad or lesson the overall Cyan.
Several of you hit the nail on the head: what I wanted, of course, was great light on the foreground AND on the clouds simultaneously. That didn't happen, primarily for the reasons Kane pointed out, and also because of the way the sun was moving through layered clouds with narrow bands of clear sky in between. I know I'm a bit obsessive about this, but I like to tell my customers, "What you see in my prints is what I saw through the lens." Since I didn't see that on the summit of Antero, I can't in good conscience put together #1 and #2.
As for the cyan cast Kane observed on his system: first off, Kane, you can question anything you want! I welcome your feedback. In this case, I don't see a cyan cast on my Samsung SyncMaster XL20 monitor, calibrated with a Spyder 3 Elite, with a white point of 5000K, when I look at the image in Lightroom. When I view the image in Firefox, the color seems to match the Lightroom view fairly closely. Internet Explorer is further out, but on the more saturated (too saturated) side of things, at least as viewed on my monitor. I think we probably have a situation where different monitors, calibration software and browsers have produced variations in color, rather than an actual cyan cast. I will double-check the actual prints carefully to make sure they didn't shift in that direction.
Thanks again to everyone!
Yes, I agree with #1, but sure like the pastel sky in #3.
I've been in too many similar situations recently where the best foreground and sky are 90 or 180 degrees out of phase.
Just for what I see on my Mac, I don't notice any cyan cast either. I will say I had posted an image a while ago and had a comment or two about a cyan cast as well. Of course, the image in question could have used some warming, but the color cast was fairly normal for the scene that was in the shadows. I suspect, it is an issue with our monitors and calibration as you point out. Nevertheless, I still like to hear those comments. Many times folks have noticed something I completely overlooked!