Which edit do you like best?

[AlanKlein]

#2 looks washed out and unnatural. #1 has better contrast. Also, I know you like the sun's rays. But it gives the scene a fake look like you're trying to impress us. Maybe it's the position, It just doesn't work where it is. Nice shot.

 

[smoke665]

It appears the flare was added post, because it doesn't match the elements. The light rays are in front of the tree and shadow side of church, not behind where I would expect them to be given the location of the elements involved.

Anytime you add light to a scene it's important to be cognitive of direction of light and shadows.

Another point, as mentioned above flares are rarely brilliant sharp edged. Typically you'll see some haze develop as it cones through the atmosphere. Adding a little gausian blur on 50% gray layer and adjusting the opacity can take the edge off.

 

[Warhorse]

I'm in the #1 camp.

 

[SquarePeg]

It appears the flare was added post, because it doesn't match the elements. The light rays are in front of the tree and shadow side of church, not behind where I would expect them to be given the location of the elements involved.

Anytime you add light to a scene it's important to be cognitive of direction of light and shadows.

Another point, as mentioned above flares are rarely brilliant sharp edged. Typically you'll see some haze develop as it cones through the atmosphere. Adding a little gausian blur on 50% gray layer and adjusting the opacity can take the edge off.

I did not add the flare in post. I shot the photo purposefully into the sun without a lens hood to create the flare in camera.

 

[SquarePeg]

#2 looks washed out and unnatural. #1 has better contrast. Also, I know you like the sun's rays. But it gives the scene a fake look like you're trying to impress us. Maybe it's the position, It just doesn't work where it is. Nice shot.

Thank you for feedback on the processing of the darker vs the lighter/warmer edit. I think I prefer #2 but may dial it back a bit.

To elaborate on why I created the flare to begin with… this church and tree have been photographed a million times by just about every New England landscape photographer. I myself have taken more traditional shots from this exact perspective in previous years. As we happened to be in this area when the tree was so colorful, I decided to shoot it again despite it being harsh almost midday light. Using that light to create the flare was an attempt to make the best of it and create something different and more dramatic.

Not really sure what you mean by trying to impress you? I really wasn’t expecting any of the traditionalists on this site to “like” either photo because of the flare.

 

[SquarePeg]

The first one for me. I prefer the more saturated colours. I can see how you have lifted the steeple and church slightly in the second but it lacks a bit of contrast. If you are using photoshop, you could try reducing the output level of the highlights in Levels to kill some of the starburst glare then selectively lighten the steeple using the Shadows and Highlights tool and finally, add a bit of mid tone contrast (slider at the bottom of the same tool). I would leave the church building as is. Just a thought if it helps.

Thanks. Great point. I probably should have made more selective and fewer global edits. I was being a bit lazy.

Pastel image works better w/ what's going on in the image as a whole. A more commercial calendar or greeting card look.

Thanks yes I guess that’s a good way of looking at it.

#2 emphasizes the church while #1 emphasizes the sun. Any preference I have right now could change after my next meal. If there was a group of pictures associated with them, that would probably make a decision for me.

My goal was to emphasize the tree so I failed!

I like #2 because it appears softer. #1 looks like it's over processed.

Thanks for the input. Interestingly the second one is a duplicate of the first which was edited in LR. Then I made some additional exposure and shadow edits in Snapseed. So has a lot more processing done to it.

 

[AlanKlein]

Thank you for feedback on the processing of the darker vs the lighter/warmer edit. I think I prefer #2 but may dial it back a bit.

To elaborate on why I created the flare to begin with… this church and tree have been photographed a million times by just about every New England landscape photographer. I myself have taken more traditional shots from this exact perspective in previous years. As we happened to be in this area when the tree was so colorful, I decided to shoot it again despite it being harsh almost midday light. Using that light to create the flare was an attempt to make the best of it and create something different and more dramatic.

Not really sure what you mean by trying to impress you? I really wasn’t expecting any of the traditionalists on this site to “like” either photo because of the flare.

The rays seem to me to overwhelm the rest of the picture and become the subject. It blocks the tree rather than complementing it and the church. But don't go by me. That's just my opinion. It's your picture and you have to be happy with what you want.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

The problem with the first picture is that the shafts of light seem to hide and de-emphasize the tree, pushing it into the background. To emphasize the tree, it would be better if the sun were away from the tree, more as a "sidelight". The second picture emphasizes the church to me because it looks like the exposure was deliberately set up to show it off at its best.

 

[webestang64]

Number one for me but mainly cause the second one is too yellow for my taste and a bit washed out.

 

[SquarePeg]

The problem with the first picture is that the shafts of light seem to hide and de-emphasize the tree, pushing it into the background. To emphasize the tree, it would be better if the sun were away from the tree, more as a "sidelight". The second picture emphasizes the church to me because it looks like the exposure was deliberately set up to show it off at its best.

Number one for me but mainly cause the second one is too yellow for my taste and a bit washed out.

Here is where I ended up. A slight crop to emphasize the subjects and remove some of the sun but leave the rays, a bit less exposure and more contrast. I left the wb warm which is where I like it. Thanks all for your comments and insights. Feel free to chime in with thoughts on the final (for now) edit of this one.

 

[webestang64]

I like it. Have you thought about taking out the cars/road sign?

 

[SquarePeg]

I like it. Have you thought about taking out the cars/road sign?

Those idiots were also there to rake photos and THAT’S where they parked.

 

[enezdez]

I go with #1, while I understand the flare is on purpose, it is my opinion that on #2 it over powers the church and largely becomes the focal point...however you still have the issue of competing focal points and the starburst distracts from the church/steeple

Cheers!

 

[MitchP]

#1 has deeper blacks. I like crushing blacks, so #1 for me.

 

[terri]

I do like your final edit. Good job technically, getting that deliberate lens flare.

It's probably no surprise to you that I preferred the 2nd of the original two edits. I like the light, ethereal mood of it. Discovering later in the thread that you made a technical decision to add the whimsy of lens flare only strengthens my preference.

Not everyone is gonna get what you were doing, but I did and I say: Great job!