Posts: 186
Threads: 11
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
1
Nice Shots. To me, they're more the same than different. But if I had to choose, I like the second one. It just pops a little more with more shadow detail.
Posts: 2,731
Threads: 598
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
I second Mike's opinion, the polarizer did a good job
Posts: 157
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
1
Nice shots! I prefer the first one, with a bit more dramatic background.
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
Second one. Trees on either side have more balanced lighting and the river has a more dramatic one.
Posts: 1,254
Threads: 112
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
18
Thanks for your opinions everyone.
Most people tend to like the 2nd one but I think I prefer the 1st one given the more dramatic contrast.
Posts: 1,598
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
For me it is number 1 with the left bank of number 2
.
I like the more dramtic look of #1, but I also like the sunny detail in the left bank of #2.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
I see some halos mostly in the distance (hills/horizon). Is that just how the mist maybe was thicker on top of the land, or is it due to post processing (tonal mapping for HDR)?