Catalina Mt Sunset

[robackja]

Used one of Luminous Landscape's digital blending techniques to blend 2 exposures (one for the sky and one for the foreground)

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe-roback/2208633998/" title="Catalina Sunset by dirtyfreebooter, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2208633998_fa8ae9e93d.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="Catalina Sunset" /></a>

40D + 17-40 f/4L @ 17mm.

[JFSanders]

Wonderful landscape. I wouldn't change a thing.

Jim

[jiminyClickit]

robackja,

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10887

The more information you provide, the better a Critiquer may be able to comment clearly and completely on your photo.

[robackja]

robackja,

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10887

The more information you provide, the better a Critiquer may be able to comment clearly and completely on your photo.

Well I guess since the only specification I said was that I blended 2 exposures, I am looking for critiques about the blending. Exposure on the trees in the foreground? I don't know.

A general critique of the shot. I don't have any specific questions really. Wanted people to look at the photo and give me their first impressions, what took their eye first, etc.

People own experiences of shooting desert sunsets, things I could have done or thoughts for next time...

[jiminyClickit]

"A general critique of the shot. I don't have any specific questions really. Wanted people to look at the photo and give me their first impressions, what took their eye first, etc.

People own experiences of shooting desert sunsets, things I could have done or thoughts for next time..."

That's good, a point that a Critiquer can comment from. If you were concerned more about the composition, or if the sunset was contrasted enough . . . anything that you thought might be critqued. Adding camera settings, weather, time of day, why you chose this scene, all that will give better direction to your thread. If you truly have no questions, say that, but we won't believe it! Once we ask, a question always comes up.

[steevdavis62]

Personally Robackja, i think you have done a good job. But i think you have done it too well. I think it looks unnaturally exposed. I think the foreground is too well exposed, to suit the colour in the sky. By the time the sky is that dark, the light has faded alot more then your photo represents.

But again, you applied the technique very well, so well done with that

[Sela]

I think this picture looks fantastic. The only thing I would say as far as critique is...that "old saw" the rule of thirds. Your horizon is pretty much exactly in the middle of the frame which runs the risk of making the picture static (as opposed to dynamic). Of course they say rules are meant to be broken but you might try different crops and see how you like them.

[BlueSage]

I think it's great and I wouldn't change a thing either. I like the nearly sillhouette effect of the tree. Love the color!

[coldphoenix]

I think I'm with steevdavis on this one, it's beautifully done, but in this case it's strength is also it's weakness. That's fine if you were going for a more artistic approach, but I guess I personally prefer the more natural captures. Also, I felt there was something off about it during my first impression, it wasn't till further analysis however that I realized what it was that was bothering me. There appears to be this soft white "glow" around the tree branches. This might be a result of the blending, I'm not sure, but I think that's what gives the illusion of the foreground being placed against a staged backdrop. Again, getting rid of that glow might help in making the photo more natural looking. Otherwise, you captured the painted sky wonderfully.