# Help/Suggestions with PP on this pic



## Raj_55555

When I took this photograph I was really excited, but it didn't quite turn out to be as great as I pictured it in my mind. It just doesn't fell right, is it the color, white balance?  Can't quite put my fingers on it. 
Any suggestion is welcome, any attempts to correct this even more so:







Link to full resolution:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7772/18346651765_9f22d6d9bd_o_d.jpg

I can provide the raw file if requested.


----------



## tirediron

Hmmm... it is a nice image, but there is something that could make it a really nice image, 'though for the life of me, I cannot put my finger on it!


----------



## Raj_55555

tirediron said:


> Hmmm... it is a nice image, but there is something that could make it a really nice image, 'though for the life of me, I cannot put my finger on it!


Jeez!! Thanks John!  

Well, at least it's not just me..


----------



## sm4him

I don't know, Raj…it's pretty darn good.
Had you not said you felt it was lacking, I don't think I'd have had anything negative to say about it.

Since you did point it out, I looked at it a little more critically than I might have otherwise.  The only thing I can say is that the lighting on the horse is fairly harsh. More than that, the dark hills between the horse and the beautiful snow-capped mountains might kind of serve to "muddy the waters" as it were. To me, those dark hills are what don't really have much "punch" and so they are kind of detracting from the image (although, as I said, it's still wonderful!). Not much you could do about that really.


----------



## pixmedic




----------



## tirediron

sm4him said:


> I don't know, Raj…it's pretty darn good.
> Had you not said you felt it was lacking, I don't think I'd have had anything negative to say about it.
> 
> Since you did point it out, I looked at it a little more critically than I might have otherwise.  The only thing I can say is that the lighting on the horse is fairly harsh. More than that, the dark hills between the horse and the beautiful snow-capped mountains might kind of serve to "muddy the waters" as it were. To me, those dark hills are what don't really have much "punch" and so they are kind of detracting from the image (although, as I said, it's still wonderful!). Not much you could do about that really.


 I think you nailed it Sharon - it is indeed the lighting on the horse.  To me, it makes it look composited.  I agree though, going to be tough to do much about it.


----------



## Raj_55555

tirediron said:


> ... going to be tough to do much about it.


Clearly you are wrong, just look at Pix's version of it!




sm4him said:


> I don't know, Raj…it's pretty darn good.
> Had you not said you felt it was lacking, I don't think I'd have had anything negative to say about it.
> 
> Since you did point it out, I looked at it a little more critically than I might have otherwise.  The only thing I can say is that the lighting on the horse is fairly harsh. More than that, the dark hills between the horse and the beautiful snow-capped mountains might kind of serve to "muddy the waters" as it were. To me, those dark hills are what don't really have much "punch" and so they are kind of detracting from the image (although, as I said, it's still wonderful!). Not much you could do about that really.



Thanks Sharon, now that you've mentioned it, I also think it's the lighting on the horse and the dark oak forests in the hills. I think I'll go with the bunny then.


----------



## waday

I know how to fix it. 

Print it out, put it in a frame, and then hang it on the wall.

Done.


----------



## Raj_55555

waday said:


> I know how to fix it.
> 
> Print it out, put it in a frame, and then hang it on the wall.
> 
> Done.


 That's one way to deal with this.. Thanks @waday.


----------



## sm4him

pixmedic said:


> View attachment 102434



Almost…but STILL there's something just not. quite. right.

Ah, wait. I got it!!  Let me fix that for you:


----------



## Raj_55555

sm4him said:


> Almost…but STILL there's something just not. quite. right.
> 
> Ah, wait. I got it!!  Let me fix that for you:
> 
> View attachment 102437


Perfection!


----------



## Dave442

The horse is too much the main subject. I think you saw majestic mountains with a horse in a field. For me there is not enough field in front and to the left to proportion the horse with the rest of the scene. Also, it seems to have a bit of a panoramic crop and I think it would work better going the other way. Maybe not all the way to square, but here it is anyway...


----------



## DarkShadow

I should have learned by now never ever open a thread while drinking hot  coffee, When I seen a rabbit  appear in the image I choked half to death and coffee came out of some orifices that it should not have.

AFA the photo goes,I think its just missing Clinton Eastwood with his six Shooter.


----------



## Raj_55555

DarkShadow said:


> I should have learned by now never ever open a thread while drinking hot  coffee, When I seen a rabbit  appear in the image I choked half to death and coffee came out of some orifices that it should not have.
> 
> AFA the photo goes,I think its just missing Clinton Eastwood with his six Shooter.


Now I'm thinking about morphing Clint Eastwoods image with the bunnies, carrying his famous colts 



Dave442 said:


> The horse is too much the main subject. I think you saw majestic mountains with a horse in a field. For me there is not enough field in front and to the left to proportion the horse with the rest of the scene. Also, it seems to have a bit of a panoramic crop and I think it would work better going the other way. Maybe not all the way to square, but here it is anyway...


Thanks Dave, I think you're right too. There's not enough field, maybe I should have gone for a higher angle. Your version does work much better than mine IMO, thanks


----------



## TheNevadanStig

Brought up the exposure a tad, turned down highlights, then sharpened a bit...


----------



## Designer

Here is my version:


----------



## jovince3000

Like everyone said, I think the only thing not working in that image was the horse's harsh light. 

So I softened the light for you. 

-First made an level ajustment that bring back the shadows and brightned the lights. 
-Then created a frequency separation, softened the light on the low-pass layer with multiple selective gaussian blur filter on harsh light and shadows. 
- (layer one is a mistake of my part, it is removed from the final psd version) 
- a final hue/saturation layer combined with a layer mas to remove the green cast under the horse. 

If you decide to use it, I can send you the PSD file no worry. 

Hope you like it.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I agree about the light, it created some great contrast in the mountains but is too much for the horse. I wonder if the horse being so much in the left half in the picture makes it more noticeable.

I don't think I'd do much because sometimes the more you mess with it the worse things can get! lol

I feel like I almost want to take a step back, like the horse isn't quite in the best place; I might crop the right side a little to see if that better balances the composition (maybe from just to the right of that line of clumps of grass, and to the left of the peak nearest the edge of the frame).




Something like this, also took a slight bit off the left side and bottom edge to clean up the background a bit.


----------



## Raj_55555

Thanks @jovince3000 for taking the time to help me out, you did a really nice job.
But IMO @Designer 's version is my favorite so far, second only to the mustached bunny . I prefer his crop, and maybe I'll incorporate some of your suggestions to get the best of both worlds. Thanks everyone for the great response.


----------



## Hunter58

I actually thought the first shot looked very good.


----------



## limr

Hunter58 said:


> I actually thought the first shot looked very good.



Me, too.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl

My PP- added some hazy light, bumped the colour, bumped the exposure in areas and added a warm tint. 
Oh and did a high pass sharpening. Everyone edits differently, and this is definitely my style 
Had to make image smaller to upload....


----------



## The_Traveler

With the horse at the side, I tend to look past him but the mountains aren't anything special.
If the horse is the main subject in the mountain setting, I would make him more prominent in the frame.
By cropping off the second mountain then the horse and the single peak make a decent pair.


----------



## scooter2044

Maybe it makes sense to everyone else, but could someone explain to me what the dome shape is between the two mountain ranges. At first I thought it was a shadow because it appears to be part of the last range, but from what? And why is it a different color if it isn't a shadow? I'm pretty sure it is part of the snowy range.


----------



## OrionsByte

I think it's a beautiful shot and the only thing I would have done is give the horse some more space behind him, like Traveler did (though I like the original crop better). I feel like, here's this horse with all this wide-open space and he's crammed in to a corner.


----------



## jsecordphoto

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> My PP- added some hazy light, bumped the colour, bumped the exposure in areas and added a warm tint.
> Oh and did a high pass sharpening. Everyone edits differently, and this is definitely my style
> Had to make image smaller to upload....
> View attachment 102487



Looks like an Instagram filter


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl

jsecordphoto said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My PP- added some hazy light, bumped the colour, bumped the exposure in areas and added a warm tint.
> Oh and did a high pass sharpening. Everyone edits differently, and this is definitely my style
> Had to make image smaller to upload....
> View attachment 102487
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like an Instagram filter
Click to expand...

I use Photoshop CC 2015 so its not.


----------



## jsecordphoto

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My PP- added some hazy light, bumped the colour, bumped the exposure in areas and added a warm tint.
> Oh and did a high pass sharpening. Everyone edits differently, and this is definitely my style
> Had to make image smaller to upload....
> View attachment 102487
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like an Instagram filter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use Photoshop CC 2015 so its not.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you put it through Instagram, I said it looks like one. Congrats on using CC though


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl

jsecordphoto said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My PP- added some hazy light, bumped the colour, bumped the exposure in areas and added a warm tint.
> Oh and did a high pass sharpening. Everyone edits differently, and this is definitely my style
> Had to make image smaller to upload....
> View attachment 102487
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like an Instagram filter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I use Photoshop CC 2015 so its not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you put it through Instagram, I said it looks like one. Congrats on using CC though
Click to expand...

Ok, keeping in mind this is a edit of someone else's photograph.
I did what I thought would make it look better personally. 
It by no means represents my work  And thanks CC has been amazing. Recommend it to anyone.


----------



## BillM

If i wasn't half a country away from my iMac I'd pump the blacks into those mountains to let the horse standout. But as is it is a beautiful shot Raj


----------



## Gary A.

My take:


----------



## Raj_55555

Thanks everyone for the awesome response on this one, didn't expect so many people to help out on this! 
To conclude "I" think the problem was with the crop as corrected by Designer and adding some space behind the horse seemed to make it more proportional, as seen in the Lew's example and mentioned by Brian. 



scooter2044 said:


> Maybe it makes sense to everyone else, but could someone explain to me what the dome shape is between the two mountain ranges. At first I thought it was a shadow because it appears to be part of the last range, but from what? And why is it a different color if it isn't a shadow? I'm pretty sure it is part of the snowy range.


That dome shape is part of another valley called Gidara Bugyal, I had plans to trek to that point but unfortunately the snow was deeper than my height


----------



## scooter2044

The photo is beautiful but I do agree about the crop. You and the Traveler are lucky to go to such places and take photos. I guess I will just have to live vicariously through pictures.


----------



## Forkie

Late for the party, but I couldn't resist a play too!


----------



## sashbar

1. the belance between the horse and the panoramic view is not right as far as I am concerned. Dave442 is correct, that was exactly my thought immediately. I would like to see a wider shot with horse further away Usually a subject is included in this kind of a panoramic view to underline the scale, so it must be relatively small. Here it is so big and too close, so it makes mountains look like toys.
2. this magestic panorama needs a similarly magestic horse I am afraid. It would be perfect if you coud look at it and think, my God what a panorama... my God what a horse..  or at least   oh, and the horse is lovely.. Now,  look at this poor creature, it is starved almost to death. Instead of looking in awe at the mountains, I look at the horse thinking why does it look like a Nazi concentration camp prisoner?  It can hardly stand.
3. The exposition is alright and I do not even want to talk about this boring stuff, you know it all. One thing I would do, I would change the grass colour slightly, it is too yellow, does not match the upper part of the photo. I do not know of you have the color tools. And I do not know if it will be better, but it is worth trying if you want to keep the image.
Oh, yeah, and probably put some makeup on the horsey as well


----------



## limr

I don't agree about the horse. This is a mountain horse in the mountains - in other words, she's perfectly suited to the task of being in a picture of mountains. Plus, I think she's beautiful.


----------



## annamaria

I like yours and designers the best.


----------



## Raj_55555

scooter2044 said:


> The photo is beautiful but I do agree about the crop. You and the Traveler are lucky to go to such places and take photos. I guess I will just have to live vicariously through pictures.


 I will admit that I consider myself lucky in that regard, living in India really gives a lot of opportunities. Don't let that stop you though, once a year is quite possible I'd say for most people. 

Thanks a lot @Forkie , I think you got the  horse exposed correctly. Do you happen to remember the exact steps?


annamaria said:


> I like yours and designers the best.


Thanks a lot annamaria


----------



## Raj_55555

sashbar said:


> 1. the belance between the horse and the panoramic view is not right as far as I am concerned. Dave442 is correct, that was exactly my thought immediately. I would like to see a wider shot with horse further away Usually a subject is included in this kind of a panoramic view to underline the scale, so it must be relatively small. Here it is so big and too close, so it makes mountains look like toys.
> 3. The exposition is alright and I do not even want to talk about this boring stuff, you know it all. One thing I would do, I would change the grass colour slightly, it is too yellow, does not match the upper part of the photo. I do not know of you have the color tools. And I do not know if it will be better, but it is worth trying if you want to keep the image.
> Oh, yeah, and probably put some makeup on the horsey as well


I agree with both the points, I think I learned a lot of lessons with this photograph and the interactions in this thread. I'm pretty sure I can do better next time 



sashbar said:


> 2. this magestic panorama needs a similarly magestic horse I am afraid. It would be perfect if you coud look at it and think, my God what a panorama... my God what a horse..  or at least   oh, and the horse is lovely.. Now,  look at this poor creature, it is starved almost to death. Instead of looking in awe at the mountains, I look at the horse thinking why does it look like a Nazi concentration camp prisoner?  It can hardly stand.





limr said:


> I don't agree about the horse. This is a mountain horse in the mountains - in other words, she's perfectly suited to the task of being in a picture of mountains. Plus, I think she's beautiful.


This is where I'll have to agree with Leonore, I am assuming you've never really been into horses that much and the general idea that you have about horses, extremely muscular and elegant, is from television or race horses. Wild horses don't train like horse athletes, and hence don't have any need for those extra muscles. Most wild horses have a little bulging stomach and can be a bit bony depending upon the terrain.

Remember, real horses have curves!


----------



## sashbar

Raj_55555 said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. the belance between the horse and the panoramic view is not right as far as I am concerned. Dave442 is correct, that was exactly my thought immediately. I would like to see a wider shot with horse further away Usually a subject is included in this kind of a panoramic view to underline the scale, so it must be relatively small. Here it is so big and too close, so it makes mountains look like toys.
> 3. The exposition is alright and I do not even want to talk about this boring stuff, you know it all. One thing I would do, I would change the grass colour slightly, it is too yellow, does not match the upper part of the photo. I do not know of you have the color tools. And I do not know if it will be better, but it is worth trying if you want to keep the image.
> Oh, yeah, and probably put some makeup on the horsey as well
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with both the points, I think I learned a lot of lessons with this photograph and the interactions in this thread. I'm pretty sure I can do better next time
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. this magestic panorama needs a similarly magestic horse I am afraid. It would be perfect if you coud look at it and think, my God what a panorama... my God what a horse..  or at least   oh, and the horse is lovely.. Now,  look at this poor creature, it is starved almost to death. Instead of looking in awe at the mountains, I look at the horse thinking why does it look like a Nazi concentration camp prisoner?  It can hardly stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree about the horse. This is a mountain horse in the mountains - in other words, she's perfectly suited to the task of being in a picture of mountains. Plus, I think she's beautiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is where I'll have to agree with Leonore, I am assuming you've never really been into horses that much and the general idea that you have about horses, extremely muscular and elegant, is from television or race horses. Wild horses don't train like horse athletes, and hence don't have any need for those extra muscles. Most wild horses have a little bulging stomach and can be a bit bony depending upon the terrain.
> 
> Remember, real horses have curves!
Click to expand...


 Yes, they try to use this argument with female models, but somehow fail time after time


----------



## fjrabon

I had a few issues with the shot (though I still think it has some things going for it as well)

1: it's unbalanced.  To me this is where people mess up rule of thirds.  Rule of thirds is about creating dynamic balance, ie not purely half and half.  But you still need a balancing element on the other side of the frame of some sort (in some cases implied movement or an eyeline can even serve as that balancing element).  Here the horse is looking down and mostly stationary.  So there's nothing from the horse to help with the balance.  The background actually compounds this issue, since the mountain peak is also right above the horse.  The image feels left side heavy.  In cases like this I feel that rule of thirds can actually hurt more than help intermediate photographers.  They think "okay, gotta follow this rule" without really thinking about (or knowing about) where it came from. 

My advice for rule of thirds, and frame selection in general is always ask "why am I putting this here" and if the answer is simply "rule of thirds" I need to come up with something better than that. 

2) There's just enough depth of field to want more.  The mountains in the background are just sharp enough to want them to be completely sharp. 

3) The ratio of horse to background is slightly off.  I saw some mention of using a wider angle.  Remember wider angle would have made the horse BIGGER and the mountains SMALLER.  You'd see more mountains horizontally, but they'd look stretched out and puny, not towering and majestic, and the horse in relative comparison would seem even larger.  Wider angles make perspective effects greater.  You'd actually probably need a telephoto to make the horse smaller and the mountains larger.  If you want to shoot mountains with a wide angle, you need to be pretty close to them.  Otherwise they can look like rolling hills and not mountains. 

4) The coloration is just, I don't know, weird.  I think it's because in high altitudes the sky is actually bluer and darker, which threw off the camera's auto white balance and gave the image this sort of ruddish tint. 

As far as post went, here's what I thought: 




18346651765_9f22d6d9bd_o by Franklin Rabon, on Flickr


----------



## limr

sashbar said:


> Yes, they try to use this argument with female models, but somehow fail time after time



What the hell?


----------



## scooter2044

Raj_55555 said:


> scooter2044 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo is beautiful but I do agree about the crop. You and the Traveler are lucky to go to such places and take photos. I guess I will just have to live vicariously through pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit that I consider myself lucky in that regard, living in India really gives a lot of opportunities. Don't let that stop you though, once a year is quite possible I'd say for most people.
> 
> Thanks a lot @Forkie , I think you got the  horse exposed correctly. Do you happen to remember the exact steps?
> 
> 
> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like yours and designers the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks a lot annamaria
Click to expand...

 I haven't been out of state in 12 years.


----------



## FITBMX

It is a great shot, and you have gotten a lot of really nice editing ideas!
But I thought it looked really good right from the start!


----------



## Raj_55555

FITBMX said:


> It is a great shot, and you have gotten a lot of really nice editing ideas!
> But I thought it looked really good right from the start!


Thanks man! 



fjrabon said:


> 1: it's unbalanced.  To me this is where people mess up rule of thirds.  Rule of thirds is about creating dynamic balance, ie not purely half and half.  But you still need a balancing element on the other side of the frame of some sort (in some cases implied movement or an eyeline can even serve as that balancing element).  Here the horse is looking down and mostly stationary.  So there's nothing from the horse to help with the balance.  The background actually compounds this issue, since the mountain peak is also right above the horse.  The image feels left side heavy.  In cases like this I feel that rule of thirds can actually hurt more than help intermediate photographers.  They think "okay, gotta follow this rule" without really thinking about (or knowing about) where it came from.


I don't really think that I've got to follow the rule, but I've also never thought about balancing the photograph the way you've explained, so that's one lesson I learned today. I'll keep it in mind fjrabon, thanks a lot!


fjrabon said:


> 2) There's just enough depth of field to want more.  The mountains in the background are just sharp enough to want them to be completely sharp.


How can I work on that? Do you mean something like focus stacking?

BTW I really liked your edit, I couldn't make it work in B&W but this one does it IMO. Did you burn the sky?



scooter2044 said:


> I haven't been out of state in 12 years.


 Now is as good a time as any


----------



## fjrabon

Raj_55555 said:


> FITBMX said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a great shot, and you have gotten a lot of really nice editing ideas!
> But I thought it looked really good right from the start!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks man!
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1: it's unbalanced.  To me this is where people mess up rule of thirds.  Rule of thirds is about creating dynamic balance, ie not purely half and half.  But you still need a balancing element on the other side of the frame of some sort (in some cases implied movement or an eyeline can even serve as that balancing element).  Here the horse is looking down and mostly stationary.  So there's nothing from the horse to help with the balance.  The background actually compounds this issue, since the mountain peak is also right above the horse.  The image feels left side heavy.  In cases like this I feel that rule of thirds can actually hurt more than help intermediate photographers.  They think "okay, gotta follow this rule" without really thinking about (or knowing about) where it came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't really think that I've got to follow the rule, but I've also never thought about balancing the photograph the way you've explained, so that's one lesson I learned today. I'll keep it in mind fjrabon, thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) There's just enough depth of field to want more.  The mountains in the background are just sharp enough to want them to be completely sharp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can I work on that? Do you mean something like focus stacking?
> 
> BTW I really liked your edit, I couldn't make it work in B&W but this one does it IMO. Did you burn the sky?
> 
> 
> 
> scooter2044 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been out of state in 12 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now is as good a time as any
Click to expand...

I didn't burn the sky, I used a red filter simulation for the B&W conversion. 

I think you just need to shoot at f/11 to get the DoF I was talking about. Focus stacking would work but probably isn't necessary. If I remember correctly from looking at the exif it was shot at like f/3.5 or something. Given the small sensor f/11 would probably be all you need.


----------



## Raj_55555

fjrabon said:


> I didn't burn the sky, I used a red filter simulation for the B&W conversion.
> 
> I think you just need to shoot at f/11 to get the DoF I was talking about. Focus stacking would work but probably isn't necessary. If I remember correctly from looking at the exif it was shot at like f/3.5 or something. Given the small sensor f/11 would probably be all you need.


 That wouldn't have been possible. I shot this one with my P&S, not the D100, and that only supports upto f8. I do realize now what you mean about the increase in the dof, it had completely slipped my mind that I didn't stop it down much.


----------



## marioasantos

That's nice. Great work!  Where is?


----------



## JustJazzie

Beautiful shot as is, Raj!!! I've gotta say though- I like @The_Traveler's crop, and the way @jovince3000 brought up the shadows on the horse! I'd be happy to see those two edits combined.


----------



## binga63

As usual I'm late, here is my take on your lovely pic


----------



## Raj_55555

binga63 said:


> As usual I'm late, here is my take on your lovely picView attachment 102762


You are a magician! How much time did this take you? I don't know whether it's the clouds, but the mountains look so much better in your version than in mine. If you by any chance have the psd file, I'd love to have a look at it. This is amazing work, thanks a lot Binga.


----------



## Raj_55555

marioasantos said:


> That's nice. Great work!  Where is?


Thanks marioasantos, this is in a place called Dayara bugyal in India.


JustJazzie said:


> Beautiful shot as is, Raj!!! I've gotta say though- I like The_Traveler's crop, and the way jovince3000 brought up the shadows on the horse! I'd be happy to see those two edits combined.


Thanks a lot Jazzie, I'll give it a go for sure! I've some time to spare tomorrow, I'll fiddle with this one and see how much I can improve it


----------



## marioasantos

Raj_55555 said:


> marioasantos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice. Great work!  Where is?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks marioasantos, this is in a place called Dayara bugyal in India.
> 
> 
> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beautiful shot as is, Raj!!! I've gotta say though- I like The_Traveler's crop, and the way jovince3000 brought up the shadows on the horse! I'd be happy to see those two edits combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks a lot Jazzie, I'll give it a go for sure! I've some time to spare tomorrow, I'll fiddle with this one and see how much I can improve it
Click to expand...

India should be one of the best places for landscape photography. 
Maybe one day I'll go to India. It hope it will be just for photography...


----------



## Raj_55555

marioasantos said:


> India should be one of the best places for landscape photography.
> Maybe one day I'll go to India. It hope it will be just for photography...


It is a beautiful place @marioasantos, I hope you get the time to visit us soon


----------



## Desi

I'd like to add a huge WOW!! to what Binga did (to an already nice photo).....That's why I keep coming back to this site.

And...nice to see you Raj,  I always enjoy your work when I peek in here.


----------



## binga63

Raj_55555 said:


> binga63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual I'm late, here is my take on your lovely picView attachment 102762
> 
> 
> 
> You are a magician! How much time did this take you? I don't know whether it's the clouds, but the mountains look so much better in your version than in mine. If you by any chance have the psd file, I'd love to have a look at it. This is amazing work, thanks a lot Binga.
Click to expand...

Thanks Raj ....I didn't keep the psd ....so I'll do it again tomorrow and send you a dropbox link of the psd


----------



## binga63

I couldn't remember exactly what I did and I didn't extend the pic this time but here it is as promised

 and I'll leave the dropbox link up for a week so that you can pull it apart Dropbox - 18346651765 9f22d6d9bd o 1 .psd


----------



## Raj_55555

Desi said:


> I'd like to add a huge WOW!! to what Binga did (to an already nice photo).....That's why I keep coming back to this site.
> 
> And...nice to see you Raj,  I always enjoy your work when I peek in here.


Thanks for the kind words Desi, it's really very nice to see you again too! And yes, Chris is amazing. 



binga63 said:


> I couldn't remember exactly what I did and I didn't extend the pic this time but here it is as promisedView attachment 103046 and I'll leave the dropbox link up for a week so that you can pull it apart Dropbox - 18346651765 9f22d6d9bd o 1 .psd


Thank you so much Chris, you probably don't realise how much help this one was. I really learned a few new things just going through that psd. I spent a considerable amount of time on it, I'll try a version of my own with my own clouds and stuff to see how much of it I can really replicate. Thanks again, you were very helpful!


----------

