Grand Teton NP

Dixie

When I originally posted this photo, I put the one up that I had originally process using PS7. Since then I have gone through PSCS and I am currently using PSCS2. I decided to look back at some of my older photos to see if I could improve on them with both a later version of PS and three years more experience under my belt working with PS.

Which effort do you like the best?

# 1.


# 2.


Please do not look at the properties to see which is the latest file.

photodoug

shot number one appears more naturall and soft...second shot seems like too much lightening of shadows. beautiful location.

saurora

This is interesting, I agree with Doug that too much detail seems to have been pulled from the shadow areas. On the other hand, the detail on the mountains in the background in much more apparent and the over all shot appears more contrasty and thus sharper. My mind tells me I should like the 2nd shot better (clearer, sharper, etc.) but it seems somewhat over done? I guess I will go with the first shot.

Montec

I like #2, a bit over sharp but the first one is really soft and shadowy for my taste.

Did you notice how the line of the rock formation in the mountain is on the exact same angle as the cloud? If you look this formation runs right through all three of the peaks and extends right on to the cloud line behind the trees....strange.

kgarrett11

Number 1 looks more natural.

Dixie

Thank you for the input so far. This is strange - out of the remarks the results are basically 3 for # 1 and 1 for #2. Yet in the poll itself the vote is 7 for #2 and only 1 for #1.

...and yes, it is a beautiful place. It is the Catheral Group in Grand Teton National Park overlooking the Snake River in the foreground.

ebwest

I added my vote for one. I agree with the others, it looks more natural.

wxwax

I like the added pop of 32. The reflection is much nicer. But the mountains are overdone, I'd scale that back a bit. And the right hand trees don't look quite natural, with areas of bright and very dark that don't seem to make sense (masking issues?)

Scott_Quier

If I do a comparsion of one image against the other, it's a little difficult to choose as they both have minor problems. But, when looking at each and evaluating each on it's own merits, IMO #2 comes out head and shoulders ahead. The only real drawback I see in #2 is the top "edge" of the mountains (on the right) looks a tad over sharpened.

BTW - it was easy to determine which was the later file, just look at your copyright in the framing - no need to look at file properties.

Dixie

Scott_Quier wrote:

If I do a comparsion of one image against the other, it's a little difficult to choose as they both have minor problems. But, when looking at each and evaluating each on it's own merits, IMO #2 comes out head and shoulders ahead. The only real drawback I see in #2 is the top "edge" of the mountains (on the right) looks a tad over sharpened.

BTW - it was easy to determine which was the later file, just look at your copyright in the framing - no need to look at file properties.

Oops, got me. I forgot to put the original copyright date on the frame template.

Dixie

Thanks to everyone who replied and provided me feedback. It is appreciated.