Feedback on processing

Hey guys, I've been working on new techniques, mainly with dodging and burning and wanted to share. I'm sure some won't like it, but I feel like I've been awakened and my images are going to start having some soul to them, rather than the flat technically perfect 'crap' that I was producing before

Here's the old flat version

I certainly like what you've done overall with the image, it has a richness the "old" version doesn't. Probably my only nit is that overall it is far darker and a lot of detail in the trees and the water are almost lost. Something in the brightness range between the two images might be better. Congratulations on your 'awakening'!

I like most of the work you did here quite a bit, David. Particularly with the skies and the mountains. I probably might have cropped the right side to lose that snag, but your work saved an integral part of the image. I think that the burning was too strong on the left, though. The submerged tree trunks lost all of the character seen in the original, the mountains went to grey mush and the water to the left of the trunks is a bit too dark. I can understand that you had to balance things and I don't know what the answer would be.
Some may decry your techniques, but the best landscape photographers of today are using similar techniques that make artistic (and attractive) work from otherwise flat and uninspiring images.

Thanks guys, I completely agree. I was trying to draw attention away from the left side and focus on the mountains, it's way too much and cropping may be a better answer. I'm not sure if bringing back detail in the log would detract or not...

Good idea. A crop to about the second notch in from the left fixxes things up well to my eye.

What they said. Old trees, new sky and mountains. Done.

I too found the extra detail on the left to be a bit distracting. But also found the dodging to have made what was there too dark. I agree with the crop solution. But like what you are doing...

Love it! I agree with the cropping, but overall really like what you've done. The before/after is amazing.

Took the suggestions into account and think I may have something decent now!

Really like what you have done here, David.
Joe Rogers

The last version looks about right to me, David. Im just a bit puzzled by the lighting so maybe you can set me straight; the tops of the peak look like very early sunlight (or late, never been to Eagle) with the glow and all, but the area just below (in a v-shaped notch) looks much darker than the area adjacent to the treeline, which is comparatively brighter, almost like clouds are creating dappled lighting but that would be impossible with the peak glow. So, I have to conclude it's a processing artifact. What i do in these cases is look at the best (middle histogram) exposure and examine the range of brightness from treeline to peak. Even if the exposure doesnt encompass the whole DR, it still gives a good indication of the relative brightness--the sensor doesn't lie! So, the final product should retain that same gradation, even if it's brighter/darker than the original exposures. Or, maybe im out to lunch and this is late afternoon light--at any rate it's confusing to me and it shouldn't be

Third one looks great! I could see burning the non glow part of the main peak on the right just a tad.

I agree with Stan, that the repost looks right, too. Your pp work made a more dramatic and pleasing image imo. Very well done!

I personally really like what you did with this David. I also like the last post best. The image has a lot more dramatic feel to it. Nice improvements!

The latest version seems "more better" to me. I see what Stan is saying about the light at the top of the peak. But more noticeable to me is that the left side of the peak appears burned too much and has lost detail and contrast. Are you using the burn tool, or brushing in from a layer of reduced brightness?