yanko, I believe you assumed I liked this version better because I asked why she entered the other. Not the case at all and I never said anything like that. The reason I asked about the other is because the clouds in that one seemed more unnatural. But you are right, each to their own. I do like the house better in this one.
mk, you can hide this if you want. I just didn't like someone using my comment to state their biases.
Why do you prefer this version? No offense to the great Mysterious Yellow 70 but this edit kind of looks like she just punch in some random settings to produce this tonemapping. The tonal relationships are completely destroyed making the photo look like a mess.
The other version (i.e. take III.jpg) is a much finer edit hands down. The highlights and shadows while still looking tonemapped is still believable. The light still looks like it's coming from the sun where as in this photo it looks like the weeds are radioactive emitting their own light. It just floors me that people love these crazy edits but hey to each is own.
Also, don't kill me! *runs*
You're exactly right. This version was a simple tonemap of the disaster that was the original entry (good god!) as a test when I first got the plugin. It was only done on a 640px image. I had to redo in order to make a print res version and the other is what I came up with.
At this point, I think I'm probably done editing this silly pic. Time to do some new stuff. :)
to bad it didn't get accepted. But I saw the picture you posted as the winner last year...and, well...enough said. Their loss.
Can I ask why you decided on a softer version?
This is the MN fair? Next year I swear I'm going to send something in. Especially seeing that picture that won.
If you want I'll erase this comment. Don't want to mess up your presentation.
Why do you prefer this version? No offense to the great Mysterious Yellow 70 but this edit kind of looks like she just punch in some random settings to produce this tonemapping. The tonal relationships are completely destroyed making the photo look like a mess.
The other version (i.e. take III.jpg) is a much finer edit hands down. The highlights and shadows while still looking tonemapped is still believable. The light still looks like it's coming from the sun where as in this photo it looks like the weeds are radioactive emitting their own light. It just floors me that people love these crazy edits but hey to each is own.
to bad it didn't get accepted. But I saw the picture you posted as the winner last year...and, well...enough said. Their loss.
Can I ask why you decided on a softer version?
This is the MN fair? Next year I swear I'm going to send something in. Especially seeing that picture that won.
If you want I'll erase this comment. Don't want to mess up your presentation.
This is actually the version I ended up submitting.
It wasn't accepted. But that's cool because at least my cat digs it.
(And it's hanging in a local gallery and will be printed in next year's calendar for a Fortune 500 company so I'll be okay about the fair rejection. :) )
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
