Which edit do you like best?

[SquarePeg]

It looks so much better against the black background on Flickr. I wish TPF had black or grey option for viewing.

 

[SquarePeg]

I'm going to be the odd one out.

I like the first one.

Yes, you can see the Milky Way more clearly in the second version. And I agree that the second version is better with the bottom part cropped. Those two edits would make this a pretty, technically-proficient image.

I just get a lot more feelings from the first one and feel it's the much more interesting edit. You don't see the Milky Way as distinctly, but unless you want this image to be all about "Milky Way! And silhouette landscape!" then you don't really need to see all of those details. The first image is dreamy, almost spooky - it's as much an image of an atmosphere as it is of the actual things represented in the image. The eyes first go from the the Milky Way and stars, to the silhouette of a sleepy town, and then the eyes travel down the soft reflections until they see those awesomely ghostly-looking reeds/grasses in the foreground. It's like going from the vastness of the universe down to the small details of life.

And I think a lot of that story, that atmosphere, is in the cooler tones that are more consistent throughout the image, and the fact that those foreground details are all but gone in the second edit. Also, that yellow light, which is less prominent in the first version, now becomes part of the story of the image (Who's still awake?") rather than a 'flaw' that you need to edit out.

I agree about the reeds and the reflections. What do you think of attempt #3?

 

[limr]

I'm going to be the odd one out.

I like the first one.

Yes, you can see the Milky Way more clearly in the second version. And I agree that the second version is better with the bottom part cropped. Those two edits would make this a pretty, technically-proficient image.

I just get a lot more feelings from the first one and feel it's the much more interesting edit. You don't see the Milky Way as distinctly, but unless you want this image to be all about "Milky Way! And silhouette landscape!" then you don't really need to see all of those details. The first image is dreamy, almost spooky - it's as much an image of an atmosphere as it is of the actual things represented in the image. The eyes first go from the the Milky Way and stars, to the silhouette of a sleepy town, and then the eyes travel down the soft reflections until they see those awesomely ghostly-looking reeds/grasses in the foreground. It's like going from the vastness of the universe down to the small details of life.

And I think a lot of that story, that atmosphere, is in the cooler tones that are more consistent throughout the image, and the fact that those foreground details are all but gone in the second edit. Also, that yellow light, which is less prominent in the first version, now becomes part of the story of the image (Who's still awake?") rather than a 'flaw' that you need to edit out.

I agree about the reeds and the reflections. What do you think of attempt #3?

I like it better than the one in the OP, though the color transitions kind of break the 'spell' of the first one. I think that's what's getting me about the color. It's not that I dislike the colors of the other edits - I think they look very nice. But something about the first one draws me in - maybe I'm attracted to the color because it's a calming color and I feel this is a calm scene. The purples and oranges are much brighter - it's less of a sleepy town, now, and one that is being woken up. Which isn't a bad thing - it's just a different thing.

So I like the newest version, but it's just a whole different feeling. So for me, they're not two edits of the same picture; they're actually two different pictures.

 

[mjcmt]

Last edit is nice. The foreground grasses add interest too.

This flickr photog has some very nice milky way shots to inspire.
Jeff Sullivan

 

[SquarePeg]

I always struggle with the sky temp on these as there is no consensus among mw shooters on what is the correct color temp for the sky. I like the purple and orange for the MW and the reflections. A tiny bit darker and tiny bit bluer sky would probably make this about as good as it's going to get for me. It's still a work in progress. I have some other similar views that need to be stacked. This new post process technique has made me look back on a lot of my previous mw edits and they all need to be done over!

 

[Peeb]

#3, especially if viewed in native format on Flickr. Well done.

 

[K9Kirk]

Nice set, #2 for me.

 

[CherylL]

The #2 with noise reduction

 

[photoflyer]

The second so long as it is a reasonable reflection of reality. Cameras today provide us with a wonder glimpse of what we could see if our eyes were more sensitive or more sensitive to certain backwidths of light. I took something with the telescope last week and was suprised at how much red there was in two of the nebulae. In the sky they just looked like white wisps. For me, I want people to see how beautiful the world we can't see is and today's cameras enable that.

 

[paigew]

The new edit is stunning. Let me know if you want advice on where to print. I recently printed a neowise comet shot from a specialty lab and it turned out perfectly.

 

[SquarePeg]

The second so long as it is a reasonable reflection of reality. Cameras today provide us with a wonder glimpse of what we could see if our eyes were more sensitive or more sensitive to certain backwidths of light. I took something with the telescope last week and was suprised at how much red there was in two of the nebulae. In the sky they just looked like white wisps. For me, I want people to see how beautiful the world we can't see is and today's cameras enable that.

Not sure what you mean about the photo being a reflection of reality? The camera sees more than the naked eye ever could as you know. I didn’t add anything to the photo if that’s what you’re wondering. I did bump the highlights in both the MW and the reflections. Same as I processed the MW to make it pop by adding contrast and highlights using the tone curve.

The new edit is stunning. Let me know if you want advice on where to print. I recently printed a neowise comet shot from a specialty lab and it turned out perfectly.

Yes please that would be great! I am participating in a local art walk next month and I have decided to use my Astro photography photos for that and will need to print a couple of them. There is a local Hunt‘s photo and video here that I’ve used in the past because I don’t have to wait for shipping I can just pick up from them and I’ve used Bay photo but since Covid shipping took forever. I am definitely open to suggestions.

 

[nmoody]

Of #1 and #2 I like #2 better but not by much. Both are fantastic. I do like your #3 redo better and think you have made some nice improvements.

 

[photoflyer]

Not sure what you mean about the photo being a reflection of reality? The camera sees more than the naked eye ever could as you know. I didn’t add anything to the photo if that’s what you’re wondering. I did bump the highlights in both the MW and the reflections. Same as I processed the MW to make it pop by adding contrast and highlights using the tone curve.

Exactly. It reflects what we COULD see if our eyes could collect light the way our cameras do. That is what it appears you have done and number two is more pleasing to me.

 

[SquarePeg]

Of #1 and #2 I like #2 better but not by much. Both are fantastic. I do like your #3 redo better and think you have made some nice improvements.

Thanks so much for your input!

Not sure what you mean about the photo being a reflection of reality? The camera sees more than the naked eye ever could as you know. I didn’t add anything to the photo if that’s what you’re wondering. I did bump the highlights in both the MW and the reflections. Same as I processed the MW to make it pop by adding contrast and highlights using the tone curve.

Exactly. It reflects what we COULD see if our eyes could collect light the way our cameras do. That is what it appears you have done and number two is more pleasing to me.

I see what you meant now. Thanks.

For the record, I almost always edit my photos to bring out my vision of what the photo should look like. Sometimes that’s reality and sometimes it’s not.

When I use PS or Affinity to drastically manipulate a photo (change the sky) or create something that wasn’t there (add a reflection or add snow), I usually say so in my comments before I post the photo.

If I’m just removing telephone lines or a trash can or making the sky more dramatic than it really was to the naked eye, I don’t always mention that.

I’m not out to fool anyone but I also don’t limit myself to only reality based photos.

 

[photoflyer]

If I’m just removing telephone lines or a trash can or making the sky more dramatic than it really was to the naked eye, I don’t always mention that.

I'm the same way. Recently there was a traffic cone in a photo I took of a vintage aircraft that was distracting. I couldn't exactly move the cone. So, I dropped the saturation on it to near zero which made it gray and less obtrusive.

I like the second because there is more color in the sky than we can see and photos like these inspire people to look up more.