Orton Processed or Normal?

[EasternSierra]

Normally Processed


Orton Processed

Shot at 21mm with the following settings and filters--

ISO 100
f/22
30seconds
-1.0EV compensation
4stop Neutral Density filter
2stop sogft graduated ND filter
Circular polarizing filter

Orton Processing involved using curves and contrast on the original image, copy, and paste as new layer. Adjust the bottom layer using Gaussian Blur at a pixel radius of 30.0, than adjust the top layer to an opacity of 30%. Merge the layers.

I don't do much "advanced processing". I know how, for the most part, I just prefer not to use it. So I would like your input as to which image you find more appealing, and please include WHY you find it more appealing. The idea is for me to better understand what observers are seeing and how they react, so I can use that information in future shots.

Thank you so much for taking the time to look and leave your opinions. I greatly appreciate it!

[Sterling]

I like the way the original sandwiches the sharp landscape between the soft sky and the soft water. I find the orton version just too blurry to view comfortably. I don't know if this blurriness is well suited to small, fine subjects like the grasses and tree branches here.

[estir_bune]

I prefer the normal as well. The Orton on this shot is too much for my eyes. It is a beautiful shot, either way.

[dakwegmo]

I prefer the first one as well. I think the problem with the orton one is that your have the natural motion blur, then the artificial blur applied in post, and it's disorienting visually.

[windrider86]

Photos are gone?????????????