C&C on high contrast IR landscape

JC

I have an image, and I am waffling on the processing. I want (need) the banded rocks in the foreground to be a dominant or key element, but I also want the whole image to work as well as it can. I can't decide if going with high contrast on the sky helps or hurts achieving both of those objectives. (images in next post due to bad blogspot webpage)

JC

Any general C&C welcome as well. I think i'm happy with the contrast in the foreground, but any comments there would be appreciated as well.

1)lower contrast sky and water


2)higher contrast sky and water

Cornflake

Good image. I looked at these for quite a while and developed a clear preference for the lower-contrast image. In the second version, there's less differentiation between the sky and the ground. The dark portion of the sky looks too much like the dark area on the ground. The qualification is that I prefer the higher contrast on the background mountains... just not the sky. I'd consider darkening the foreground bush a bit, but that's just taste.

I also work in infrared and it can be hard to figure out where to go with it in processing.

kdog

I'm so totally non-savvy in IR, so take this with a grain of salt. That one bright bush in the foreground over dominates the image for me, especially in #1. The highlights in the sky are brighter in #2, offering better balance. So that is my pick.

David_S85

First off, I like high contrast IR's, so read that into my message. I'd maybe try to strike a balance between the two images offered up, leaning more towards the less contrasty one.

Sam

I'm with the dog on the overexposed bush. This is a common problem in many desert, other landscape images.

Sam

David_S85

Maybe someone can invent a sort of anti-softbox thing that would direct dark light (anti-light) at nearby subjects that tend to overexpose like that.

PrevailingConditions

In general, it feels to me like the foreground bush and rocks are competing with the sky.

I might also ask whether it's really a question of one versus the other. You can choose to process the different parts differently to enhance the feeling you're trying to convey. I would also recommend some dodging and burning to focus the eye on the key parts of the image. Just my $0.02.

Mike

JC

Cornflake wrote: »

Good image. I looked at these for quite a while and developed a clear preference for the lower-contrast image. In the second version, there's less differentiation between the sky and the ground. The dark portion of the sky looks too much like the dark area on the ground. The qualification is that I prefer the higher contrast on the background mountains... just not the sky. I'd consider darkening the foreground bush a bit, but that's just taste.

I also work in infrared and it can be hard to figure out where to go with it in processing.

Ok, this version has a lighter sea and sky, but more contrast in the distant 'mountains' to help the chocolate mountains live up to their name

kdog wrote: »

I'm so totally non-savvy in IR, so take this with a grain of salt. That one bright bush in the foreground over dominates the image for me, especially in #1. The highlights in the sky are brighter in #2, offering better balance. So that is my pick.

Darkened the bush a touch, but I want to keep a lot of the contrast with the rocks, works a little better in a larger version.

David_S85 wrote: »

First off, I like high contrast IR's, so read that into my message. I'd maybe try to strike a balance between the two images offered up, leaning more towards the less contrasty one.

basically tried to do that.

PrevailingConditions wrote: »

In general, it feels to me like the foreground bush and rocks are competing with the sky.

I might also ask whether it's really a question of one versus the other. You can choose to process the different parts differently to enhance the feeling you're trying to convey. I would also recommend some dodging and burning to focus the eye on the key parts of the image. Just my $0.02.

Mike

Well, this is sorta a commissioned piece. You know how places like Crater lake, or Mt. Hood or any other dramatic volcano, you have to work hard to take a bad photo? Here is the opposite. 9 months of the year it's damn hot, hazy, the sea stinks, the air is full of dust, the signs of man are everywhere, and even the top of this volcano is below global sea level. My job was to try to make these rocks look interesting, or sexy, or wall-hangable...... did I succeed?

new Version:

Cornflake

It's an improvement, in my view. It sounds as if you did well considering what you had to work with.