# Which edit do you like best?



## SquarePeg (Oct 18, 2022)

1





2


----------



## cgw (Oct 18, 2022)

Frankly, the retina-searing flare is the problem along with wide contrast. How you regard contrast would likely affect choice. I tried a couple overlapped ND filters to calm the tree and over-exposed background. Guess I'd vote for #2.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 18, 2022)

cgw said:


> Frankly, the retina-searing flare is the problem along with wide contrast. How you regard contrast would likely affect choice. I tried a couple overlapped ND filters to calm the tree and over-exposed background. Guess I'd vote for #2.


The flare was on purpose.


----------



## Rickbb (Oct 18, 2022)

I prefer #1, just looks more natural to me.


----------



## John 2 (Oct 18, 2022)

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.


----------



## nokk (Oct 18, 2022)

#1 for me.  i like warm colors, but warm whites rarely work for me.  the question is, which do you prefer?


----------



## Jeff15 (Oct 18, 2022)

Number one for me too.....


----------



## Nikon photographer (Oct 18, 2022)

#1 for me


----------



## Jerry Thompson (Oct 18, 2022)

#1


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 18, 2022)

nokk said:


> #1 for me.  i like warm colors, but warm whites rarely work for me.  the question is, which do you prefer?


I’m torn. 1 is the original edit but I’m not crazy about the hard contrast of the shadows.  I do tend to prefer warmer white balance.


----------



## mjcmt (Oct 18, 2022)

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


----------



## nokk (Oct 18, 2022)

SquarePeg said:


> I’m torn. 1 is the original edit but I’m not crazy about the hard contrast of the shadows.  I do tend to prefer warmer white balance.


try a third edit.  lower the contrast to your liking and warm up the white balance to suit your taste.

i like the contrast in the first, but there's some subtle halos around the foliage against the mountain and in the sky around the steeple.  i find that happens in lightroom when you decrease the highlights a lot and increase the shadows a lot.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Oct 18, 2022)

#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.


----------



## Warfarin (Oct 18, 2022)

Can’t really say why but I like #1 the best.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Oct 19, 2022)

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


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 19, 2022)

#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 (Oct 19, 2022)

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 (Oct 19, 2022)

I'm in the #1 camp.


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 19, 2022)

smoke665 said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2022)

AlanKlein said:


> #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 (Oct 19, 2022)

John 2 said:


> 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.  


mjcmt said:


> 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.  



VidThreeNorth said:


> #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!



Scott Whaley said:


> 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 (Oct 20, 2022)

SquarePeg said:


> 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 (Oct 20, 2022)

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 (Oct 20, 2022)

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


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 21, 2022)

VidThreeNorth said:


> 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 said:


> 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 (Oct 21, 2022)

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


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 21, 2022)

webestang64 said:


> 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 (Oct 22, 2022)

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 (Oct 23, 2022)

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


----------



## terri (Oct 23, 2022)

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!


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 25, 2022)

I just find the flare to be visually distracting more than anything. I thought it looked more like it was photoshopped in, and covers so much of the tree. The photos are overly bright to me, although it was obvioulsy a bright sunny day. It's one of those photos that I'm noticing the editing more than the photograph, and wondering what the original looked like. 

I learned doing sports and events to move around and try changing the vantage point to keep things out of the frame that I don't want in the picture, like kids and big trash cans, etc. So I try to make my eye move around to see everything in the frame so I can take a step or two or more to make the visual distraction 'disappear' (I taught myself how to make empty seats disappear by scrunching down, etc.). Those cars over there don't really add to the photo. I get aggravated with myself if some annoying thing sneaks into the edge of my photo if I didn't see it in time to reframe the shot.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 25, 2022)

I like versions 2 & 3 best. Love the flare!


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 26, 2022)

enezdez said:


> 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!


Good point about the competing focal points.  That is always an issue with this location during fall.  



MitchP said:


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


Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I appreciate your input.  I tend to also like my photos more contrasty with deeper blacks but in this case the shadows were too deep for me.  I don't normally like to shoot mid day but the ride up to this part of NH is almost 2.5 hours for me so not a lot of choice in that. 



terri said:


> 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!


Thanks Terri.  Yes, the purposeful lens flare is not for everyone and I'm ok with that!  I appreciate the input on the different edits.  I was worried this thread would become all about the flare and should have stated up front that I wasn't looking for feedback on the use of the flare.  



vintagesnaps said:


> I just find the flare to be visually distracting more than anything. I thought it looked more like it was photoshopped in, and covers so much of the tree. The photos are overly bright to me, although it was obvioulsy a bright sunny day. It's one of those photos that I'm noticing the editing more than the photograph, and wondering what the original looked like.
> 
> I learned doing sports and events to move around and try changing the vantage point to keep things out of the frame that I don't want in the picture, like kids and big trash cans, etc. So I try to make my eye move around to see everything in the frame so I can take a step or two or more to make the visual distraction 'disappear' (I taught myself how to make empty seats disappear by scrunching down, etc.). Those cars over there don't really add to the photo. I get aggravated with myself if some annoying thing sneaks into the edge of my photo if I didn't see it in time to reframe the shot.


Thanks Sharon.  If I were going to print this or use it in a calendar or something I would photoshop out the cars.  



Peeb said:


> I like versions 2 & 3 best. Love the flare!


Thanks Peeb!


----------



## jeffashman (Nov 16, 2022)

#1 here as well.


----------

