Irrigation

This is an example of how fleeting opportunities may or may not result in a worthwhile image, but we'll never know unless we make the attempt. Just before sunset last Friday we were headed for our lodging outside the east entrance to Yellowstone NP. By happenstance we passed a farmer irrigating his field. I stopped because the back light through the water caught my eye. Upon examination, the curving line of the pipe added a certain interest, whilst the very low sun angle and limited viewpoints constrained my options. I wasn't sure what to make of the possibilities, but I did not want to miss a very short lived opportunity so I made a number of exposures from various angles. All were shot in RAW and intentionally underexposed so as to preserve as much detail in the water as possible. The framing and viewpoints were constrained by a barbed-wire fence, the low angle of the sun, and the boggy verge of the highway. This is my first gut reaction to the raw exposure I brought home, PP'd in LR5. I'm not sure it's living up to it's potential, but I like the general direction, as it's starting to reflect what first caught my eye. I'm satisfied my instincts were good, but I'm not so sure about the outcome. What do you all think, and what possibilities am I missing? Please feel free to play with this as you wish, and share your thoughts.

Nikon D810+Nikkor 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 @ 85mm/13, ISO 64, 1/200s, handheld, processed in LR5.

Edited June 22, 2019 by DavidTriplett

This photo needs something else... I don't know, maybe a red tractor close by in the upper left side?

 

I like the way the green grass contrasts with the whitish water. It took me a few seconds to figure out what was going on... the irrigation, with the water spraying out along the length of the hose as well as at the far end. I've driven by enough fields under cultivation so that I was able to make the connection.

 

I think that without the aforementioned tractor giving a clue that this is farmland, most viewers might have trouble figuring out that this scene is a frequent occurrence on farms. Otherwise, it just looks like a really defective hose LOL.

The story, the mood, and the atmosphere that's creating most of the feeling, mystery, and expressiveness here is in the upper sliver of the picture, the car and the road. The subject, the irrigation pipe and water, though exposed well, detailed, and nicely lit, doesn't give me near what that upper portion does. The upper part is so evocative. But it can either be seen as either edgy and jarring, being such a sliver, or too tight and awkward. Unfortunately, I'd say the latter. I have no idea what scenery would be beyond or above the car, and whether you could have possibly achieved that perspective, but that's where my imagination wants to go when I look at this photo and why I'm disappointed. I wouldn't have completely ignored the irrigation pipe, since it does have much to offer, but might have used it more as an intro or flourish to the scene as opposed to its being the main subject. The undulation, texture, and gradation of the grass is very lovely to look at.

Quick add: I love the fact that the car and road are so distant and that the foreground is fascinating negative space leading to it, just don't like how chopped off the upper part feels. I think that distance creates a lot of the feeling.

Here's the near-original framing. The crop across the top, for Sam, was in response to the sun glare, which could not be avoided from the available viewpoint, unless I wanted to lose the back light effect.

My initial response was that the sun glare is a distraction, and the far background lacks little of interest beyond the farmer's truck, which is too small to form a major visual component, but does serve as a reference as well as an extension of the leading line alluded to by the far water spray. For Vincent, there simply was nothing else of note available in the field of view. Again, the back lit water was what initially caught my eye, and was the raison d'etre of the image.

Hi David, I think your instincts were excellent! It's great that you took the trouble to stop and take this photo. The backlighting is wonderful. I personally like the original framing more w.r.t.:

- the heightened contrast between black/other

- the flare (for me more of a 'positive feature' than a negative factor.

 

The main question for me is how true to (camera) reality you want the image to be and much you might want to 'tweak' (PP) the image to express your 'visual/emotional experience' as it was when your instincts came into play.

 

Your photo is fine as it is. If you want suggestions , mine is that there is more PP you could do to make the image even more 'striking'. Only you can decide whether this better expresses your 'visual/emotional experience' or is just simply 'overkill'.

 

The main thing that occurred to me was that you could boost the backlighting even more in PP to make it stand out more. In effect, boosting the contrast.

I'm in no way suggesting what you should or shouldn't do, just illustrating my point. I've taken the liberty of adding some steps. Forgive me if I've overstepped protocol and gone too far!

 

I'm used to using Photoshop (and Lightroom) and all steps can be replicated with LR.

- adjusting black point (levels) and curves (contrast) to bump up highlights: the water sprays

- (optional) cropping to show only 'active' (spraying) irrigation lines

- an optional 'warming filter'(Photoshop: orange at 23% - with sprays masked out - which blend the grass in with the flare); In LR adjustment brush: boost Orange.

 

None of these steps is really necessary but I think bumping up the highlighted water sprays makes the photo slightly more 'dramatic'. Perhaps this matches your first instincts, perhaps not.

 

Mike

 

Mike, I think your suggestions are quite valid, and, based on your and Sam's comments, I'm re-evaluating the original image. In doing so I recall some of Sam's comments elsewhere about going for the edgy and provocative, and it occurs to me that there's also another approach that bears exploration. Sometimes the way to really pump up an image is to go over-the-top relative to focusing on and emphasizing the most important components of the image, even to the point of crossing into the realm of the abstract (cue Michael Linder here). So, what if this image IS all about the back-lit water? Cropping out everything else, and adjusting so the water stands out in high relief, we delve into Michael's territory with this:

Now, while this is less true to the whole experience of the photographer, it is absolutely true to that first impression that drew me to this subject in the first place. I also played a bit with this in B&W, but, for now, the color version gives a tiny bit stronger hint to the viewer for interpretation. Is this a stronger, more impactful and engaging image? Does knowing the backstory make the abstract character more or less engaging? Does losing the background completely succeed in focusing on the back-lit water, or does it remove "...the atmosphere that's creating most of the feeling, mystery, and expressiveness here..." (per Sam)? I survived architecture school and 34 years of practice, so give it to me straight. I can take it, and I really love the engaged and invigorating discussion.

Then there's that point where we simply go over the top and fall off the back edge:

Sumi-e, anyone? For the record, this is waaaay outside my normal comfort zone, but your feedback has encouraged me to go new places and try new things. Thank you!

Edited June 23, 2019 by DavidTriplett

how true to (camera) reality you want the image to be

Since this was captured in RAW and intentionally underexposed, "reality" is nonexistent. It's just a latent image waiting to be processed for presentation. I know and intended that the ultimate message would happen in PP, so there's nothing real about the original, any more than a negative is real until you do something with it when printed.

Here's the near-original framing. The crop across the top, for Sam, was in response to the sun glare, which could not be avoided from the available viewpoint, unless I wanted to lose the back light effect.

 

My initial response was that the sun glare is a distraction, and the far background lacks little of interest beyond the farmer's truck, which is too small to form a major visual component, but does serve as a reference as well as an extension of the leading line alluded to by the far water spray. For Vincent, there simply was nothing else of note available in the field of view. Again, the back lit water was what initially caught my eye, and was the raison d'etre of the image.

 

I think that your eye and the viewfinder did the best job of telling this story. Fortunately, the vehicle is a pickup, so it fits in with the agricultural theme of the foreground. I think that the minimal flare adds, rather than detracts, to the mood. The negative space below the pipe balances the image nicely.

 

Sometimes I find myself changing things in post, trying to "improve" the original and get frustrated. Often, in my case, that means that the original was the best conception of what I saw. After shooting for many years, I find that I adjust my position quite quickly and almost unconsciously to get all the lines going the right way and the balance between the foreground and background comfortable. I think that you did that here.

 

So, I imagine myself passing this in a gallery. The highlighted water immediately grabs my eye, then I wonder, "Is that the farmer's truck?" as I'm drawn to look at the whole scene. The backlit water is a very strong element, but I think that it should serve to pull me to the image, just as it did you, but then I explore the image further to experience a broader feeling and mood that the overall image exudes. If Sam were there, he'd say, "What's that brooding on the upper left?" and I'd probably say, "I think a storm is coming in..."

Then there's that point where we simply go over the top and fall off the back edge:

 

Sumi-e, anyone? For the record, this is waaaay outside my normal comfort zone, but your feedback has encouraged me to go new places and try new things. Thank you!

 

Abstract? Yes. Telling a story? No. Some will love it.

the farmer's truck, which is too small to form a major visual component

A small lone element in the distance lit like this and on a road like this can actually be big. Distance and scale can be the stage on which a small element becomes big, universal, and iconic. The truck, small as it may be in physical size within the frame, has a big expressive presence, symbolic and American, shot the way it is. There's Jack Kerouac in this scene, there's nostalgia, there's longing, there's mystery and mood.

Sometimes I find myself changing things in post, trying to "improve" the original and get frustrated. Often, in my case, that means that the original was the best conception of what I saw.

Sometimes it means the original came close but is ultimately lacking something for me that pp just won’t make up for.

If Sam were there, he'd say,

“Something’s odd and constraining about the top crop being so tight to the road and car” and “It feels like there’s a different and more expressive picture here that doesn’t zero in on the pipe and water so blatantly.”

...

 

Sometimes it means the original came close but is ultimately lacking something for me that pp just won’t make up for.

 

Yes, I hear you Sam, but I'm too often guilty of opening picture in post and thinking, "Now what can I fix?" when, in fact, I actually captured my original vision.

 

I often do take images while thinking as I take them that I'll change the aspect ratio to 5;4, 1:1, 2:1, etc. or that I will clear some haze and I'll emphasize a blue or red cast even more. PP is truly a part of the creative process, but it's best when it's being considered at the inception of the image, when the camera is still in your hands. Don't, for instance, clear haze just because you can with one click of a button.

Yes, I hear you Sam, but I'm too often guilty of opening picture in post and thinking, "Now what can I fix?" when, in fact, I actually captured my original vision.

While pp is often a crucial part of the process for me, I find its more integrated and creative aspects are not in fixing anything.

Note: I wrote the comments last night, and it looks like a lot of ‘em have been covered by those commenting since then, so I apologize for the redundancy. But here are my thoughts:

 

I like the image a lot. I find the eye-path satisfying: I sweep up the line of water, hang a right with the final spray, then along the road to the truck. After pausing there, I drop back to the water for another circuit. My first take on the image was that the star player was the quality of the evening light, with the water and truck being supporting actors, so it was very helpful to me to read your intent for the image—that instantly changed the direction of my comments (…but you’ll get both sets).

 

First, with the intent that the water is the star:

1. That truck is a surprisingly powerful eye-magnet, and I suspect particularly so because it is so close to the top of the frame. I’m not quite sure why that’s the case—possibly because it doesn’t have any competition up in that corner, so my eye hits it and parks for awhile. In any case, with the truck present, my eye isn’t pausing on the water, and that’s a major reason that I wasn’t reading the water as the star.
   
2. I suspect another reason is that the water isn’t as bright as my eye expects it to be. Backlit droplets act as little lenses for the sunlight, so my eye expects at least some of them to be about as blown-out as the sun would be. The image has about 1.8 stops latitude before there’s significant clipping in the droplets. If the water were brighter, it might start to compete more effectively with the truck for attention. One trick I often use is to pull up the whites in Lightroom while reducing the highlights—that also enriches the colors without distorting them much.
   
3. A more direct to keep my eye on the water would be to crop to remove the truck, either from the top (tilting the image slightly would preserve more headroom) or from the right. As soon as that happens, my eye sweeps up the line of water and parks on the end spray before dropping back to the foreground for another circuit, and I’m fully engaged with the water.
   
4. If the water has solo billing, it would be impossible to resist playing with contrast, highlights, shadows, and brushes for negative and positive clarity and so on, since there’s no longer that reminder of reality up in the right-hand corner.
   
5. The apparent vertical line that cuts off the water on the left edge of the spray at the end of the pipe is a bit distracting—it might be worthwhile to clone in some droplets to break up the line and make it less evident.
   

Next, with the evening light as the star, and water and truck as supporting cast:

1. When I saw the format of the initial image posted, my first thought was “I hope he cropped out a sunflare” because a sunflare up there might contribute a lot to supporting evening light as the star player; when I saw the uncropped image a few posts later, my dog thought I was unhinged when I shouted “Yes!” For the evening light theme, I think the uncropped version is very strong.
   
2. Increasing the exposure 1 to 1.5 stops and reducing highlights might further support “evening light” by bringing the overall brightness up to closer to what we expect to see just before sunset [i recalibrated my monitor to make sure I wasn’t seeing an image that was less bright than intended]
   
3. It is so tempting to play with the sun-flare! The composition is strong enough that one could use a radial gradient to further brighten and warm the sun-flare corner. That would reduce the importance of the truck, and so would hand some of its power back to the water.
   
4. Now, an odd idea that fits solidly into the “possibilities” or “just doodling” category. It might be interesting to see what would happen if the near end of the pipe seemed nearer—something you couldn’t do in the field because of the situational constraints. It would be tempting to take the image into Photoshop, select the part of the image below the bend in the pipe, and do a perspective warp on the selection to increase the scale in the foreground. This should have the effect of leading the viewer more directly into the image since we'd be looking a bit more along a diagonal pipe rather than across a fairly horizontal one. Slightly stretching the image vertically would have a similar effect, except that the perspective wouldn't read so convincingly.
   

Anyway, it’s a beautiful image!

...

 

I like the image a lot. I find the eye-path satisfying: I sweep up the line of water, hang a right with the final spray, then along the road to the truck. After pausing there, I drop back to the water for another circuit. My first take on the image was that the star player was the quality of the evening light, with the water and truck being supporting actors, so it was very helpful to me to read your intent for the image—that instantly changed the direction of my comments (…but you’ll get both sets).

 

...

1. I suspect another reason is that the water isn’t as bright as my eye expects it to be. Backlit droplets act as little lenses for the sunlight, so my eye expects at least some of them to be about as blown-out as the sun would be. The image has about 1.8 stops latitude before there’s significant clipping in the droplets. If the water were brighter, it might start to compete more effectively with the truck for attention. One trick I often use is to pull up the whites in Lightroom while reducing the highlights—that also enriches the colors without distorting them much....
   

I didn't react this way when I first saw it, but now that it's been said, it does bother me a little. I would have blown out some of those highlight, probably under 5%, but I'd want more eye-catching sparkle, to catch my attention as I walk by in a gallery. We don't need "detail" in every water droplet, I would opt for more sparkle over the classic, "no blown highlights."

My version giving the image (in my opinion only) a little more "mood" with a little cropping and some simple burning/dodging. I usually judge an image by "I wish I would have photographed this scene" and this photo is one of those.

All, I'm very grateful for the excellent feedback. I apologize for not re-engaging sooner, but sometimes life happens. I want to give each of your comments full shrift, so please be patient. I'll be back (to coin a phrase:)).

My friends, this has been a fascinating exploration and I can't thank you enough for helping me to learn so much! I'd like to address several of your comments in detail, and then I'll share the outcome for this image.

 

The subject, the irrigation pipe and water, though exposed well, detailed, and nicely lit, doesn't give me near what that upper portion does. The upper part is so evocative. But it can either be seen as either edgy and jarring, being such a sliver, or too tight and awkward. Unfortunately, I'd say the latter. I have no idea what scenery would be beyond or above the car, and whether you could have possibly achieved that perspective, but that's where my imagination wants to go when I look at this photo

Sam has a really good point. My initial concern was coping with the unavoidable sun flare, hence the crop. But, as Sam points out, this removes some of what likely gives this image a lot of potential. Since I exposed in RAW, with purpose, I went back to re-evaluate the far background. In doing so, and working it in PP, I discovered (re-discovered?) some of what made this scene so attractive to me originally. So, I've brought the far distance back into view, and manipulated it to overcome the original underexposure, while maintaining the shadowed, somewhat mysterious feel of that space beneath the mountains.

 

most viewers might have trouble figuring out that this scene is a frequent occurrence on farms.

I'm hoping the addition of more context will address this issue. I believe it does, even absent any more obvious clue.

 

If you want suggestions , mine is that there is more PP you could do to make the image even more 'striking'. Only you can decide whether this better expresses your 'visual/emotional experience' or is just simply 'overkill'.

Mike's endorsement of the original framing, along with that of several others, got me to thinking, along with what the power of PP might do with the raw (pun intended) material of the original exposure. Since I managed to underexpose to preserve details in the water, there really wasn't any part of the image which would not be accessible to enhance the presentation. So, I experimented a bit. Mike's other suggestions were useful and provided food for thought as I explored further possibilities.

 

To me there is so much tension in the photo, hunter/prey, dark/light, silver/gold.

I can vouch that I didn't feel a lot of tension in the original scene. Actually, it was quite bucolic. Still, Ludmilla's comments reminded me of the visual dynamic offered by the snaking irrigation pipe, which was one of the reasons I stopped in the first place. She's not the only one to so comment, so I tried to enhance that dynamic in the final presentation, particularly in respect to the apparent focal point of the pipe's path, the farmer's truck.

 

I think that your eye and the viewfinder did the best job of telling this story.

Dave, as always you are gracious and kind. Thank you.

 

So, I imagine myself passing this in a gallery. The highlighted water immediately grabs my eye, then I wonder, "Is that the farmer's truck?" as I'm drawn to look at the whole scene. The backlit water is a very strong element, but I think that it should serve to pull me to the image, just as it did you, but then I explore the image further to experience a broader feeling and mood that the overall image exudes.

I think this statement encapsulates my own discovered understanding of this image. Yes, the back lit water is what grabbed my attention as I drove along the highway, concentrating on finding my way to my lodging before dark. Yet, there's really so much more here, even if I was only subconsciously aware of it as I rushed to frame and make a few exposures before the sun was gone. It was, for me, reminiscent of AA's account of the "Hernandez" image, including the exercise of finding the right PP to present the latent image for viewing.

 

I often do take images while thinking as I take them that I'll change the aspect ratio to 5;4, 1:1, 2:1, etc. or that I will clear some haze and I'll emphasize a blue or red cast even more. PP is truly a part of the creative process, but it's best when it's being considered at the inception of the image,

While pp is often a crucial part of the process for me, I find its more integrated and creative aspects are not in fixing anything.

Dave and Sam's comments remain absolutely apropos to this image. It was made knowing that it would most likely take significant effort in PP to realize its potential. All of your suggestions regarding options for PP are, therefore, valid and useful, for which I am thankful.

 

My first take on the image was that the star player was the quality of the evening light, with the water and truck being supporting actors,

Leslie, reading this brought me to a self-realization that I had been denying until you elucidated it: This image IS all about the light, its quality, character, directionality, tone, temperature, and, most of all, its transience. This was and could be only the briefest of moments, a snapshot not just photographically, but in time and space as well. Yes, the backlit water is what caught my attention, but, as you and Dave have so successfully noted, the light, in all its moods and features is what makes this image engaging. The light makes the water glow, but it also suffuses the scene with a warm, end-of-day glow, sweeps gently across the fields, glints off the truck, and, by its loss in the shadows, adds depth and mystery to the deep background and rising mountains. This image really is about the light, and my goal has been to recognize and illustrate that in compelling fashion.

 

“I hope he cropped out a sunflare” because a sunflare up there might contribute a lot to supporting evening light as the star player; when I saw the uncropped image a few posts later, my dog thought I was unhinged when I shouted “Yes!” For the evening light theme, I think the uncropped version is very strong.

On review, I agree, wholeheartedly. Now, what to do with it?

 

the water isn’t as bright as my eye expects it to be. Backlit droplets act as little lenses for the sunlight, so my eye expects at least some of them to be about as blown-out as the sun would be.

I've wrestled over time with when and when not to worry about blown highlights. This observation of Leslie's is one that I had initially considered, but in my ever-so-conservative approach I neglected to consider. The "final" version has adjusted the brightness and rendering of the drops to add just a touch of blown sparkle. I hope it works as well for others as it does for me.

 

Anyway, it’s a beautiful image!

Thank you to Leslie for her kind words and very detailed evaluation. It has been enlightening.

 

My version giving the image (in my opinion only) a little more "mood" with a little cropping and some simple burning/dodging. I usually judge an image by "I wish I would have photographed this scene" and this photo is one of those.

Tim's comments and PP sample are equally inspiring and gratifying. Tim, your take reassures me I'm not nuts and might be, at least to a small degree, on a viable track. Thank you. The more I play with this and you all provide such amazing feed back the more glad I am I stopped to make this image.

 

So, here's where I'm at with Irrigation:

You all are welcome to share any further opinions, if you like. I do ask for one very specific item of feedback: I intentionally went in and cloned out the brightly back-lit flying insects throughout the scene. Yes, I know they are part and parcel of this scene. However, in a recent competition, one of my very best images did not make the initial cut because the falling, backlit water droplets were misunderstood in the initial culling by the judges. (They were taken for flaws of some type with only a cursory look.) In speaking with them afterwords, they had an "aha!" moment, but it was, by then, too late. So, in the assumption this will be entered in competition, keep the bugs or not? Thanks, again, to everyone for such a wonderful learning and exploratory experience!

I love the result, David. This is an image I could happily sit with for a very long time.

keep the bugs or not?

I think you made a good call with the bug removal--at this point I have to sheepishly admit that when I went back to check the original to see what you were referring to, I realized that I had assumed they were specks on my monitor.

Here's the near-original framing. The crop across the top, for Sam, was in response to the sun glare, which could not be avoided from the available viewpoint, unless I wanted to lose the back light effect.

[ATTACH=full]1300492[/ATTACH]

My initial response was that the sun glare is a distraction, and the far background lacks little of interest beyond the farmer's truck, which is too small to form a major visual component, but does serve as a reference as well as an extension of the leading line alluded to by the far water spray. For Vincent, there simply was nothing else of note available in the field of view. Again, the back lit water was what initially caught my eye, and was the raison d'etre of the image.

 

David, I don't see the sun or its glare as necessarily a distraction. To me, it complements the natural beauty of the scene. I do wish, though, that it were in the same corner as the "hook" of the sprinkler line.

Minority view:

 

I just keep seeing the irrigation pipe as a too-intrusive “subject” (too big in the frame given the context and increasingly screaming as more and more post processing is suggested and acted on) amid all this more subtle atmosphere, light, texture, sense of space and movement of the distant car. To me, it fights mystery and most importantly speaks in a very complete sentence with a very insistent exclamation point rather than the poetic phrase with an ellipsis which is the rest of the photo.

 

I say this knowing and honoring the fact that tastes differ and that most are satisfied with this photo. It’s not necessarily something you would want to act on here, or could even act on if you wanted to, given the photo as taken, as much as something that could have some influence in future photos.

The original, I think, is too dark . . . The grass, the pipe, the water look dirty leaving the pipe. I'm thinking brighter and warmer. I would probably clone the truck out if your style allows this. thotle's version is closer to my vision but I still think that the background could be warmer.

David, I don't see the sun or its glare as necessarily a distraction. To me, it complements the natural beauty of the scene. I do wish, though, that it were in the same corner as the "hook" of the sprinkler line.

Thank you, Michael, but my wife, the physicist, would remind me that orbital dynamics prevent this particular condition.:)

 

I say this knowing and honoring the fact that tastes differ and that most are satisfied with this photo. It’s not necessarily something you would want to act on here, or could even act on if you wanted to, given the photo as taken, as much as something that could have some influence in future photos.

Sam, I'm confident our individual tastes diverge to a significant degree. That's OK. It's also true that this particular image has the irrigation pipe as its primary and controlling subject, but your comments and those of others certainly have provided alternative considerations for future shots. What mystery remains in this image dwells in the far background, shadowed beneath the mountains.

 

The original, I think, is too dark . . . The grass, the pipe, the water look dirty leaving the pipe. I'm thinking brighter and warmer. I would probably clone the truck out if your style allows this. thotle's version is closer to my vision but I still think that the background could be warmer.

Ed, you'll see from the final that I agree about some level of increased "warmness" and brightness, particularly adding some sparkle to the water. The deeply shadowed background is, I believe, essential as a counterpoint to the well lit mid and foreground. As you will note from my posts in other threads I'm not averse to cloning out undesirable items, but I and others believe the truck to be an essential component. Thank you for your engagement and thoughts.

 

A reminder regarding post processing: This image was captured using settings and composition that fully anticipated, even demanded a significant effort in post processing to bring out the final print. I consider this analogous to the expectation in film of working the latent image both in developing and printing in order to obtain the final outcome. All of the PP suggestions provided are valuable and appreciated, even if they don't make it into the final print. I hope no one devalues the importance of decisions made in PP relative to this image. Thanks again!

Edited June 27, 2019 by DavidTriplett

Thank you, Michael, but my wife, the physicist, would remind me that orbital dynamics prevent this particular condition.:)

 

 

Sam, I'm confident our individual tastes diverge to a significant degree. That's OK. It's also true that this particular image has the irrigation pipe as its primary and controlling subject, but your comments and those of others certainly have provided alternative considerations for future shots. What mystery remains in this image dwells in the far background, shadowed beneath the mountains.

 

 

Ed, you'll see from the final that I agree about some level of increased "warmness" and brightness, particularly adding some sparkle to the water. The deeply shadowed background is, I believe, essential as a counterpoint to the well lit mid and foreground. As you will note from my posts in other threads I'm not averse to cloning out undesirable items, but I and others believe the truck to be an essential component. Thank you for your engagement and thoughts.

 

A reminder regarding post processing: This image was captured using settings and composition that fully anticipated, even demanded a significant effort in post processing to bring out the final print. I consider this analogous to the expectation in film of working the latent image both in developing and printing in order to obtain the final outcome. All of the PP suggestions provided are valuable and appreciated, even if they don't make it into the final print. I hope no one devalues the importance of decisions made in PP relative to this image. Thanks again!

 

David, despite your statement that "orbital dynamics prevent this particular condition," I wonder whether you couldn't place the sun in the upper left corner instead of the upper right in post. If it were me (using PS Elements 15), I'd use the clone stamp tool to copy the sun to a another layer, this eliminating it from the original, and then copying it to the original.