Utah sunset

[cpeay]

 

[Aloicious]

nice, was this up by morgan? its about time we can start seeing the sky again around here....there's a little halo around the shrubbery in the foreground on the ends.

 

[Trblmkr]

I like it, the gold really stands out against the foreground.

 

[ceeboy14]

For me, while quite spectacular in scope and color, it is a bit too much scope. Just a suggestion:



Foreground does nothing to assist the sky, so I made it go away and cropped using the two diagonals at either side to further guide the eye toward the sunrise...it's not the eye needed any help getting there, it was getting there stopped my eye from further exploration as I had a lot of horizontal planes not doing much of anything to hold my interest past a first glance.

In most cases, I edit not because I want to show someone a better way but to assist me in the field when a similar shot presents itself...what to do, oh what to do? I think it is working for me but still too early to tell.

 

[EIngerson]

I think I like the original better. In your edit my eyes keep wandering about the scene.

 

[eswebster]

i like the original better as well. Its beautiful. Only suggestion and its very minor is maybe try bringing the highlights in the foreground image down a bit. It think it will help a bit on the haloing in the grass which makes it look a bit too HDRish.... but like i said its a great image as is and thats a very minor piece that stuck out as maybe helping the image. Thanks for sharing.

 

[ceeboy14]

For my edification eric and ewebster, since we obviously have divergent views on this image, what is it about the foreground that you think helps make the image? I'm not defending my edit, but moreso tryig to understand how other perceive horizontal, vertical and diagonal planes. Understanding seeing a scene "wrong" is as important as being able to "resee or retink" how an image should or could look. I am the learner here.

 

[skieur]

For my edification eric and ewebster, since we obviously have divergent views on this image, what is it about the foreground that you think helps make the image? I'm not defending my edit, but moreso tryig to understand how other perceive horizontal, vertical and diagonal planes. Understanding seeing a scene "wrong" is as important as being able to "resee or retink" how an image should or could look. I am the learner here.

There is a white "pathway" in the foreground that leads the eye into the picture toward the centre of interest.

 

[adventurenick]

Also a fan of the original - the pathway leads the viewer's eyes and the brush shows the diversity and full beauty of the area, rather than just making it a simple mountain sunset shot

 

[eswebster]

For me the original makes me feel like i am seeing the whole scene, like i am standing there looking at it myself. The edit removes much of that experience and the balance of the image.

 

[cpeay]

My intent was to have the path lead your eyse to the sunset. I didn't notice the halos, thanks.

 

[whosnut]

The clouds are really dramatic! I, too, am a fan of the original.

 

[TimLindstedt]

Great colors! Amazing glow on the clouds!

 

[EIngerson]

For my edification eric and ewebster, since we obviously have divergent views on this image, what is it about the foreground that you think helps make the image? I'm not defending my edit, but moreso tryig to understand how other perceive horizontal, vertical and diagonal planes. Understanding seeing a scene "wrong" is as important as being able to "resee or retink" how an image should or could look. I am the learner here.

Without the grassy foreground there's a balance missing. With the foreground in the scene my eyes focus on the sky and it's contrast. Without it my eyes wander around the scene and never settle on anything. I wish I had a technical term for what I'm saying.

 

[pgriz]

@ cpeay: very nice shot. I like the way you composed it. If you can get rid of the halos, it would be a really good shot (from my perspective, anyways).
@ ceeboy14: To me, the rays of the sun make the upper part of a "Y" shape, with the path being the vertical stem of the "Y". While the clouds are an important part of the image, I like the way the foreground creates depth in the image, and to a certain extent the warmness in the foreground bushes echoes the golden glow in the sky. I also like the way the image has several horizontal bands that build up to the final band of the sky/clouds. Without the foreground, much of the depth is lost, as is the horizontal banding, and the colors in the foreground. Anyways, that's my take on why the original works for me better than your edit. (BTW, no criticism of your edit, I think it helps advance the discussion of what works and why).