First Post - Before & After

[bobmielke]

Which photo do you prefer & why?

http://bobmielke.smugmug.com/photos/...87_T5czL-L.jpg

http://bobmielke.smugmug.com/photos/...08_DevXG-L.jpg

[Swampy]

Hi Bob. Welcome to RetouchPro! Explore and Enjoy!

The second one. Looks more realistic to me.

[Jerryb]

hi,
my opinion only, but I like the one with the clouds.

The clouds adds depth, interest, and action ... it also sort of hilights the mountain...

overall it stirs more emotions than the picture without the clouds...!!

Originally Posted by bobmielke

Which photo do you prefer & why?

http://bobmielke.smugmug.com/photos/...87_T5czL-L.jpg

http://bobmielke.smugmug.com/photos/...08_DevXG-L.jpg

[TommyO]

Welcome Bob !

I prefer the one with fewer clouds. Nothing other than personal preference, as I like the way it allows my eyes to be drawn to the mountain faster. I would be fine if there were one or two more clouds in it. I just don't like the sky full. But, there is no artistic basis for the choice.

[bobmielke]

This is one of my favorite photographs and I've started this same thread on other sites. 95% of those who commented chose the cloudless photo. It was the original "real" capture and has dramatic depth of field, causing some to doubt the mountain and treeline wern't blended together in photoshop. I have the original RAW file as proof it's for real. I like both photos for different reasons. The sky full of clouds was blended from another photo taken in John Day, OR months earlier.

Thank you all for your input. I wanted to show how difficult it is to tell a well blended photo from an unedited version & feel I made my point.

[Markzebra]

No you didn't, neither look real. On the clean one even though you say its real theres serious lens vignetting, and a strange edge where the mountains join the sky. Maybe it is real, but its still odd.

When you are compositing clouds in, you have to understand that they recede towards the horizon - in this image they have just been snapped in and are quite obviously faked. They also look like they have been rescaled, and have no natural definition. Correct clouds in this image would be sharp, smaller with a much higher white point.

[Swampy]

>>>I wanted to show how difficult it is to tell a well blended photo from an unedited version & feel I made my point.

I didn't know that was the test. My response was based strictly on esthetics and personal preference. Because of your statement, I downloaded the photo and zoomed in 1000+pixels. There are definite giveaway traces of a photo edit job in the area I've indicated. The pixels of the trees are more prominent than the sky background and there is definite finging going on.

[bobmielke]

Very well. Remove my name from your roles.

[Swampy]

No need to do that, Bob. You came in here and asked for an opinion based on "which do you like best" and we told you. Then you said it was really some kind of test to prove your composting skills. So we critiqued your composting skills.

If you can't take the critiques, then you shouldn't be asking for them. We are all adults here and I have always learned from fair critiques offered by those who take the time to give them. It's how I learn.

[igot2pman]

First of all, I love the picture! Great colors and almost perfectly sharp.

I agree with TommyO, the one with less clouds has more appeal. But the sky could use one or two more clouds. Maybe even two new ones. Also the natural or fake gradient toward the mountain is very nice and should stay.

Just a helpful comment, in the first picture, the trees shown below could use some better masking... the mountain is ok, but these trees look to be misted or something, making it look altered. Also, if you could keep the original gradient it would really add some appeal. I also agree with Markzebra, the clouds look off, and should be corrected.

Good job,
-Keven

[bobmielke]

The trees weren't altered.

[igot2pman]

Originally Posted by bobmielke

The trees weren't altered.

I understand they were unaltered or at least not suposed to be. But when you put the new sky in, they must have gotten a bit masked over.

There is clearly a sharpness diffrence.

[TommyO]

Originally Posted by bobmielke

I wanted to show how difficult it is to tell a well blended photo from an unedited version & feel I made my point.

Sorry Bob. I gotta agree with the others.. I wasn't looking for a fake. I only glanced at the images for eye appeal. If you want a hard critique on masking skills, please ask for that. Anyone taking the time to look closely can certainly tell on these images... nothing special going on there.

A real test would not throw up two for comparison. Just one.

I don't mind doing another, as long as we know that is what you want us to do. And then, we should critique it for technique, pointing out what we think are telltale signs... so you can improve your skill sets.

[L33t]

It's hard for some to accept the comment, but you need to be honest about yourself how good you really are in blending this photo...

I just take 1 second look and can tell this photo doesn't look real. But good try is a good try