# Sunset Panorama from Mt. Hough



## JimMcClain (Jul 22, 2015)

Mt. Hough is in Feather River Country. It's about 7,500' elevation and it's difficult for me to breathe up there, but I just HAD to revisit the mountain and try getting a panorama of the beautiful vistas. This picture actually has another view of Lake Almanor (see my previous post of the lake here), just to the right of the setting sun. It looks like 2 lakes, but it's actually one boot-shaped lake.

Stitched together from 8 frames using Lightroom CC 2015. D810, Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD at 23mm, f/16, ISO 64, mounted on a Manfrotto 294 Carbon Fiber Tripod with ReallyRightStuff BH-55 LR ball head.






Your C&C is encouraged.

Jim


----------



## jaomul (Jul 22, 2015)

Well done


----------



## John Hunt (Jul 22, 2015)

Very beautiful!


----------



## Didereaux (Jul 22, 2015)

Composition is very nice.  BUT  you are WAY to over saturated, and sharpened.  Those sliders should be handled with a light touch, not a hydraulic bionic finger.


----------



## JamesScott86 (Jul 22, 2015)

That is beautiful! Excellent Shot!!!


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 22, 2015)

I think it's a beautiful shot. And I disagree regarding the over saturation and sharpening comment above. It's fine as is.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 22, 2015)

Great scene and well timed, but I agree that the processing is a bit intense.  More importantly (IMO) is the fact that as a result of the HDR process (I assume), the lighting no longer makes sense.  We can clearly see the setting sun, but there also appears to be a strong lightsource from background upper left, especially noticeable on the rocks image right.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Jul 22, 2015)

Stunning shot Jim! Print it, frame it, hang it!


----------



## PropilotBW (Jul 22, 2015)

I like this scene a lot!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2015)

This looks like it belongs on 500px, Jim.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jul 23, 2015)

Really great scene with a lot of potential. 

The sky looks a little stretched in the color gamut, especially noticeable with some of the magentas bleeding into the blues, as well as the ridge line. 

The foreground is the real problem. I understand the importance of keeping shadow detail, but relative in luminosity to the bright sky, the foreground should be considerably darker (if you want to realistically present the light). That means keeping the foreground in shadow, with detailed darks. You can achieve this with careful blending of luminosity masks.  I'm also not a huge fan of the boulder on the right, but it's probably because it's demanding so much attention with this processing; the textures are pulling me away from the best parts of the scene.  I think it's worth a re-process.


----------



## JimMcClain (Jul 23, 2015)

Majeed Badizadegan said:


> The sky looks a little stretched in the color gamut, especially noticeable with some of the magentas bleeding into the blues, as well as the ridge line


I don't understand this part. Can you use layman's terms? Is there a fix or solution to this you might recommend?



> The foreground is the real problem. I understand the importance of keeping shadow detail, but relative in luminosity to the bright sky, the foreground should be considerably darker (if you want to realistically present the light). That means keeping the foreground in shadow, with detailed darks. You can achieve this with careful blending of luminosity masks.  I'm also not a huge fan of the boulder on the right, but it's probably because it's demanding so much attention with this processing; the textures are pulling me away from the best parts of the scene.  I think it's worth a re-process.


"Blending of luminosity masks" is another term I am unfamiliar with. I use primarily Lightroom CC 2015. I have Photoshop CC 2015 as well, but have very little hands-on with that program. Can you offer some guidance I can use to improve my knowledge in that area?

This foreground issue may be what @tirediron was referring to, although this photo is not an HDR image. I realize some may think I have a "hydraulic bionic finger" but that's certainly not my intent. I like dramatic images, but will be the first to recognize I am still learning how to reign that in a bit when given the proper guidance. Your critique is very helpful and much appreciated.

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## RDenhardt (Jul 23, 2015)

Just beautiful...


----------



## TrolleySwag (Jul 23, 2015)

Beautiful but not realistic. I like it.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Jul 24, 2015)

Jim, whatever is 'wrong' with it, is way above my pay grade 
THAT is beautiful!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 24, 2015)

Not sure, but maybe some gentle adjustment brush strokes with negative clarity and burning on the foreground elements (grass, trees and rock).


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 24, 2015)

Do you happen to have an unedited iteration that myself and others could try to edit? There really is some serious potential here, but I agree that it may be a touch overdone. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## knswee (Jul 24, 2015)

That is outstanding, I like it alot. How many so called art works of a cubes or a spot gets raves.
It is beautiful and surreal. Keep it as is.

ken


----------



## JimMcClain (Jul 24, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> Do you happen to have an unedited iteration that myself and others could try to edit? There really is some serious potential here, but I agree that it may be a touch overdone.


I don't want to offer up an unedited RAW or TIFF file this time. I prefer to re-edit myself, based on some of the advice given here. This way I don't feel like I'm trying to copy _your_ vision, but stay true to my own and attempt to learn how to temper and refine it.

To make it easier for all to compare, I am posting both versions below. The top is the edited version, below that is the same photo from my original post. I lowered the saturation throughout. I removed the clarity, +exposure and shadow enhancement from the rocks and left only the warm color temp. The grassy area I removed the +exposure and shadow enhancement overall, but left a couple of +exposure streaks that I reduced slightly. That area already had some serious -clarity to soften, which I left as-is. I removed the shadow enhancement and +exposure from the tree line and added a little highlight only to the taller trees closest to the camera. In the sky and clouds, I reduced the shadows, clarity and slightly lightened the graduated filter from its original setting. I also spot healed the few white cloud specks that, although natural, seemed out of place and too sparse.


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 24, 2015)

JimMcClain said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Do you happen to have an unedited iteration that myself and others could try to edit? There really is some serious potential here, but I agree that it may be a touch overdone.
> ...




Much improved, but I might even lower the brightness on that rock and the tree's a bit more.  The shadow bits on both of those still seem too bright. 

Jake


----------



## JimMcClain (Jul 24, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> Much improved, but I might even lower the brightness on that rock and the tree's a bit more.  The shadow bits on both of those still seem too bright.


Not by much and I altered the crop zone too.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 24, 2015)

Better and better Jim.  You really have a nice image that you can play with in LR & Photoshop.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 24, 2015)

Going in a good direction here Jim!


----------



## Bryston3bsst (Jul 25, 2015)

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think you've taken an image that would make most anyone stop and linger if it were hanging in a galley and made it into just a pretty snapshot of another sunset.

I mentioned this in another thread, about editing your photos to someone else's tastes. That's not how it's supposed to work. _You _take the picture, _you _do the post work. It's in _your_ head, _you're_ the one that was there. No one else. If people like it, great. If not, thanks for stopping by.

Go back through this thread and look at the number of very positive responses to your original edit. Then look at the number that think it needs 'editing'.

No, Jim.....you are the one that is right here. You're original edit is absolutely a wall hanger. Subsequent edits......yawn.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 25, 2015)

JimMcClain said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Do you happen to have an unedited iteration that myself and others could try to edit? There really is some serious potential here, but I agree that it may be a touch overdone.
> ...



Very nice that you are willing to take SOME of the advice.  Your statement here says much about your approach to your work after encouraging and accepting C&C.

Kudos!


----------



## JimMcClain (Jul 25, 2015)

My primary goal when posting photos in these Photo Galleries forums, as I believe most people's is, is for selfish reasons - I want people to like my pictures. But I also recognize that my vision is untamed. It can be a little too wild even for me. I like making dynamic images, but I prefer them to be based in reality.

There are many accomplished artists here. Some are extremely talented with software. Although there are those who are very good at both, a few are much better at one than the other. I don't consider myself an expert at content and composition, but believe I have a very good eye. Where I am least skilled at is manipulating the software to best reflect the drama and emotion of my vision.

Panoramas are particularly difficult in that they distort reality. A good illustration of that for me is this photo taken a few minutes before the photo leading this discussion.






The sweep of the view is approximately 240°, whereas the OP photo's view is only about 170° (very close to normal human peripheral vision). In the photograph above, the shadows are incongruent with reality - you can't have the sun on the left side of the frame pointing directly at you and shadows falling away from you on the right side of the frame. In the OP photo, I realize I developed the picture in a way that put light from the sun where there should be shadow. Specifically, the rock. The side of the rock facing the camera was in shadow, not light. It was a mistake on my part to create the illusion there was light and a lot of detail.

Conversely, there actually was light falling on the grassy area. But in the perspective of the photograph, there shouldn't have been. The aspect ratio of the image was created to convey the peripheral vision of the viewer. I wanted to make the composition realistic, if not the color and drama of the view. So, the advice I chose to take was to turn the picture into something more realistic. However, I do not consider that last image perfect. I'm sorry my last edit turned the photo into a yawner for a couple of you, but it's the price I am willing to pay to develop my artistic talent.

I don't have the same attitude about the opinions of others that you do, @Bryston3bsst. Hoping others will like my pictures isn't the only reason I post. I come here to learn. There's a lot of C&C that goes on around here that isn't offered in an educational vein, but then that's not a requirement. There's also a lot of photography posted that offers no insight into the photographer's vision or intent and doesn't even describe how or with what the image was captured. Every day I see pics posted that have no other content except a link from the picture to the member's Flickr page. That's too selfish to me and I hope I never get to that point.

Then again, there might be some who think I babble on enough to make up for dozens of photo posts empty of words to go with them. 

Jim


----------

