Post processing landscapes

Petraio Prime · Aug 15, 2010

Primoz said:
@ mrcfarms: Thanks for comments. As I thought, I have gone too far with contrast and gradient underexposure in no.2

@ kmh: Ooo, I like what you did there... not too much editing, but still much better than the original.

@ Petrario Prime: Thank you for the opinion. I know I am far from taking perfect shots and am very much aware these aren't "wow", so would appreciate if you could give an example of a good landscape by your opinion. (I love this photographer's portfolio Matjaz Krivic - Photographer - also a slovenian ) But for such photos you gotta be a pro and take your time to wait for the perfect light. In my case this wasn't an option, as photograpy was not the prime consideration at my trip. Attractive landscape + bad weather? Better luck next time

@DennyCrane: I might have made them a bit warmer, than they should be (I was shooting in RAW).

@Clanthar: I was using LR. Thanks for the information about histogram... I'll try to keep an eye on it in future

@timlair: I'm glad you like them. Go ahead, I can even send you the full sized image, if you want.

@dxqcanada: Yes, the polariser was on.

Most large bookstores have photography sections where one can find large-format photography books, many of which are of landscape work. There is such an abundance of this kind of photography that it boggles the mind.

pdq5oh · Aug 15, 2010

Landscapes have always been of interest to me. I like to leave them as much as I saw them when possible. Since you couldn't wait for the optimum light, editing was the next best thing. In #2 I think the sky is too dark. Especially on the right side of the frame. I'd probably like to see a little less color added to the ground. I like the edit of #3. The thing with #3 is the rocks in the foreground aren't tack sharp as they need to be. Dominant objects in the foreground need to be tack sharp to really work, IMO.