Processing Images of Florida Mountains in New Mexico

[Imagebuffet]

In the process of processing an image that I made of the Florida Mountains in New Mexico, I unexpectedly produced an image that reminds me of results I used to get with film:



What do you think of this result? Is it a good result?

Here is another processing attempt; this one looks closer to the JPEG (the dirt is blacker, instead of reddish):

[3n-Out]

I've looked at them 20 times each. I think I'm pulling for the 2nd image.

[WLPelzmann]

I think the first image has too much magenta, and I much prefer the blues in #2.
Which one better represents what you saw?

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by WLPelzmann

I think the first image has too much magenta, and I much prefer the blues in #2.
Which one better represents what you saw?

The 2nd one. Enough time has passed that I can't remember exactly what it looked like. I wish I could color correct while I'm there!

The 2nd image looks like it has a haze over everything, too. The JPEG my Canon 20D made looked at first glance like a tone mapped image, perhaps because the contrast was unusually low.

I also tried converting this image to black and white, but I think that something I did in processing put a lot of noise in the sky. I've noticed that sometimes an image that I edit will have a splotchy sky, then, when I redo the edit from scratch, the next image looks fine. I don't know what is introducing that image noise.

[Imagebuffet]

Here are some more images of the Florida Mountains. In the first image, I forgot that I had my camera set to manual mode, and I overexposed the image. When I realized my error, I re-shot the image. I just ran both through Elements 5. Which looks better to you?

[venchka]

Pair just above: Work with #1 a bit more. The sky is more interesting. The aircraft contrail in #2 spoils the mood.

As for your "looks like film" photos, I don't see it.

[Orogeny]

I agree with venchka, the first looks better. The sky adds more to the photo.

It looks like you need to do a good sensor cleaning.

Tim

[DickVH]

I like the first one better but many folks think I tend to use too much saturation. I've been looking at my pictures and trying to figure out how to reduce the saturation and still have a picture I like. It's a real challenge for me

Still, I really like #1.

Dick

[SevenAndMe]

I don't think there is one correct answer. The first one is more artistically interesting while the second is more realistic.
All in all, I like the first one.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

I agree with venchka, the first looks better. The sky adds more to the photo.

It looks like you need to do a good sensor cleaning.

Tim

Yes, by that point in my trip, the dust was getting to be a problem. I forgot to clone it out of my edits last night.

Thank you for your opinions on the sky, and I agree with you about them, but that isn't my concern in this last pair. Because I overexposed the first shot, I'm concerned about the loss of detail in the image. The 2nd shot is "correctly" exposed, according to my camera's light meter.

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

Yes, by that point in my trip, the dust was getting to be a problem. I forgot to clone it out of my edits last night.

Thank you for your opinions on the sky, and I agree with you about them, but that isn't my concern in this last pair. Because I overexposed the first shot, I'm concerned about the loss of detail in the image. The 2nd shot is "correctly" exposed, according to my camera's light meter.

It looks ok to my eyes. Does it look ok on the histogram? I don't see any obvious blown out highlights. Did you shoot raw or jpg?

Tim

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

It looks ok to my eyes. Does it look ok on the histogram? I don't see any obvious blown out highlights. Did you shoot raw or jpg?

Tim

The histogram of the RAW image shows the overexposed image is overexposed; everything is bunched against the far right and the blow-out alert is in the red. However, I'm able to drop the exposure (-1.15) and do other adjustments that center and nicely space the histogram, without any blow-outs.

[venchka]

Keep working in that direction. It is the better photo.

Make adjustments looking at the photo. Nobody wants to look at a histogram.

[Imagebuffet]

In case you are curious, here is what Photo #3 above looks like straight out of the camera:

[venchka]

I've made worse.