Siesta Key Sunset

[ArthurDent]

Comments and criticism appreciated. Would you crop some off the bottom? Cropping off half of the bottom part of the image would result in a perfect rule of thirds image,

[ArthurDent]

This is version 2, a half-stop brighter. Preferences?

I think I prefer the first one.

[ArthurDent]

This is the cropped version:

[Jakov Minić]

My preferences would go toward an image with the grass in focus. Would happen to have one like that?

[ArthurDent]

My preferences would go toward an image with the grass in focus. Would happen to have one like that?

I do, and here it is. I just don't like it as much because it loses the detail in the sunset, which is the central focus of the shot.

[ArthurDent]

It would have been nice if I'd had my 12-24mm f/4 lens on the camera, probably everything would have been in focus. But I had the 70-200 mm f/2.8 on it because I was trying to replicate a shot as a NEF which I'd taken on an earlier trip as a jpeg, when I'd first started in digital photography and didn't understand the value of shooting NEFs. That image is here  (taken from a spot about 30 meters from the previous shot):

[Jakov Minić]

I do, and here it is. I just don't like it as much because it loses the detail in the sunset, which is the central focus of the shot.

I prefer this version. I wonder how our community feels

[Akira]

I like the grass-in-focus version.

If the central focus of the shot is the sunset, I would lower the exposure of the initial image to make the contour of the setting sun and the details of the cloud surrounding it stand out more.

[Jakov Minić]

This is how much I would keep of your latest image.
But that's just me, I prefer taking images of sunsets with long lenses (300mm or longer if possible) when the sun is the size of a basket ball

[ArthurDent]

Jakov and Akira, thank you for your comments. Here is the image with a graduated filter applied , exposure reduced by 1 stop in the sky, sharpness and clarity increased. The first image is shown below for comparison. Let me say again how much I appreciate your comments, you are helping me to push my editing skills along at a good clip.

[Ethan]

Another version 16/9 maybe

[ArthurDent]

 Ethan – what were your adjustments to the image?

[Andrea B.]

My feeling is that the original image is too static because there is no detail in the lower dark half and the image is divided into that 50-50 mode. Cropping at the bottom does to seem to help much although the bottom crops are marginally better than the 50-50. I don't think there's anything can be done for that image except to reshoot although I do think Ethan's rework nicely brought out what could be brought out and I like his 16:9 idea.

Sometimes a photo just does not work out. (I have about one million of those myself.  Gradually I delete them. But why is that always so hard to do. <lol>)

The second image you posted of sunset and bird is much more interesting!! Some nice light in the water there and the interest of the bird.

[Ethan]

Ethan – what were your adjustments to the image?

1- Shadow/Highlights tool to recuperate the shadows
2- Mask the lower part to keep the upper part untouched
3- Dodge the sun and the sun reflection
4- Curve adjustment tool to lighten shadows and mask and reduce opacity to taste
5- Burn the emerging plants
6- Burn the plant's foreground selectively
7- Hue Saturation tool to recuperate Red and Yellow
8- HP all the image and then HP selectively
9- Burn parts of the clouds for balance
10- Crop 16/9 and recrop left hand for balance


That's it.

[CS]

Sometimes a photo just does not work out. (I have about one million of those myself.  Gradually I delete them. But why is that always so hard to do. <lol>)

Don't we all have a plentiful supply of less than optimal images. As to why we keep them around, maybe we think that, like wine, they'll improve with age, or perhaps the next time we see them we'll find a redeeming quality that we originally missed. Fat chance! One reason that stands out is that hitting the delete key is so permanent.