Composite, Modified Picture - Seeking Inputs

[Kamala]

I modified this picture to alter the sky. I can see a few obvious flaws, which might seem minor. Real eyes may catch these flaws. Appreciate if you all can provide inputs. I have been trying to work on some of my pictures to modify the background... 

[conrad_hoffman]

Technically it's not bad but the big flaw for me is the lighting that would have produced that sky doesn't seem consistent with the lighting on the scene. It's like the sun is setting (rising?) both behind me and over the rock formation.

[Kamala]

25 minutes ago, conrad_hoffman said:

Technically it's not bad but the big flaw for me is the lighting that would have produced that sky doesn't seem consistent with the lighting on the scene. It's like the sun is setting (rising?) both behind me and over the rock formation.

Thanks, Conrad. Agreed. Did not pay good attention to that. The pinkish color may imply sunlight/sunset is somewhere towards the right (or left)-front  (southwest) of the dome. The presence of orangish color might also suggest that sunset is behind the dome. But the shadow definitely says sunlight is somewhere towards the southeast of the dome... Sky colors might not be consistent as well. colors suggest sunset (or sunrise) is being the rock.

Kamala

[William Michael]

What Conrad wrote: The light illuminating the sky in the background, appears as a 'falsehood' to the light which is illuminating the rocks and the grass.

That's what my eye first saw, and I was jarred.

I expect I was jarred instantly because of this recent post.

Have a look at this Light House photo LINK - each of us has very similar sky lighting types and sky formations, albeit yours is a more dramatic sky. Both are synonymous with the sun rising (or arguably setting) in the background. Your middle-ground and fore-ground appears that the sun is front on; about 30 degrees off camera axis and at about 60 degrees downward, from camera right whereas my image depicts flat reflected lighting from the front.

Not suggesting that such an image could not be 'real' - but when the topic is "Composite, Modified Picture" one can't help but to initially look for 'flaws' - and my eye saw that, as a big one.

WW     

[Kamala]

4 minutes ago, William Michael said:

What Conrad wrote: The light illuminating the sky in the background, appears as a 'falsehood' to the light which is illuminating the rocks and the grass.

That's what my eye first saw, and I was jarred.

I expect I was jarred instantly because of this recent post.

Have a look at this Light House photo LINK - each of us has very similar sky lighting types and sky formations, albeit yours is a more dramatic sky. Both are synonymous with the sun rising (or arguably setting) in the background. Your middle-ground and fore-ground appears that the sun is front on; about 30 degrees off camera axis and at about 60 degrees downward, from camera right whereas my image depicts flat reflected lighting from the front.

Not suggesting that such an image could not be 'real' - but when the topic is "Composite, Modified Picture" one can't help but to initially look for 'flaws' - and my eye saw that, as a big one.

WW     

Thanks, William. I should have paid more attention to the light direction.... Will work on that. I have a few dramatic skies that I have shot over the years. Foreground at these locations were not amazing,... Any case, I will need to figure the right background to modify this.

[mikemorrellNL]

Up to you but FWIW, I think that your foreground, trees and the half-dome are 'dramatic' in their own right.

In addition to the points made above about light direction, for me the dramatic red/orange 'sunset' sky kind of dominates the photo. Or at least competes with the foreground for attention. As a results the half-dome looks pale and slightly 'uncomfortable' sandwiched between two bands of deep, warm color. So a different sky - even a 'dramatic' one - is fine. I would just consider whether the color and detail of the new sky complements the 'presence' of the half-dome or detracts from it. 

In terms of visual perception of depth, warmer (red/orange), more saturated colors tend to 'advance' in paintings and photos. Cooler and/or less saturated colors tend to 'recede'. So you might want to experiment with a cooler, less saturated sky.

 

7 hours ago, Kamala said:

Thanks, William. I should have paid more attention to the light direction.... Will work on that. I have a few dramatic skies that I have shot over the years. Foreground at these locations were not amazing,... Any case, I will need to figure the right background to modify this.

 

[conrad_hoffman]

Just randomly thinking, maybe a dark non-dramatic sky would work well, so the image goes light to dark, bottom to top?

 

[MrAndMrsIzzy]

12 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Up to you but FWIW, I think that your foreground, trees and the half-dome are 'dramatic' in their own right.

 

 

 

Gotta agree (I'd include the sky in that statement too).  The only thing I'd do\try is maybe make the rocks (dome, cliffs, etc.) into a separate (precautionary) layer and  maybe darken them a little (and I do mean a little) and play around with the contrast (also a little) to see what happens. 

[Kamala]

15 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Up to you but FWIW, I think that your foreground, trees and the half-dome are 'dramatic' in their own right.

In addition to the points made above about light direction, for me the dramatic red/orange 'sunset' sky kind of dominates the photo. Or at least competes with the foreground for attention. As a results the half-dome looks pale and slightly 'uncomfortable' sandwiched between two bands of deep, warm color. So a different sky - even a 'dramatic' one - is fine. I would just consider whether the color and detail of the new sky complements the 'presence' of the half-dome or detracts from it. 

In terms of visual perception of depth, warmer (red/orange), more saturated colors tend to 'advance' in paintings and photos. Cooler and/or less saturated colors tend to 'recede'. So you might want to experiment with a cooler, less saturated sky.

 

 

Agreed. The original photo has clear blue sky and the light is quite harsh on the rock face. This was the reason why I wanted to modify the sky. Thanks for the inputs. I will try with the other sky backgrounds, may be not as dramatic.

[mikemorrellNL]

Thanks for posting your picture, @Kamala! As always, I personally learn a lot from reviewing other people's pictures and from the suggestions that other members make. As far as I'm aware, yours is the first composite picture I've reviewed. I personally hope that others will follow 🙂.

Very OT, but just a mention that there are weekly 'Post Processing Challenges' in the Digital Darkroom forum. There are no rules for how members might apply post-processing. The aim is just to have fun playing around with a photo in PP and learn from each other. Some contributors (including myself) regularly create 'composite pictures' in one form or another. Many members post multiple (different) PP-versions. Either together or separately. Like you, I've often struggled to get the 'lighting' of a composite image to look (at first glance) visually 'believable' - disregarding the 'content'! I'm not blowing my own trumpet here, but this is just one example of where I had to think about where and how to 'create' shadows and highlights on the 'subject', given the 'composite' of foreground/background/sky/subject. Should you wish to contribute, just to experiment with (for example) different skies, you'd be very welcome. It's not a 'No Words' forum so contributors/members can give any feedback that you request. If you decide that it's not for you, that's fine too!

7 hours ago, Kamala said:

Agreed. The original photo has clear blue sky and the light is quite harsh on the rock face. This was the reason why I wanted to modify the sky. Thanks for the inputs. I will try with the other sky backgrounds, may be not as dramatic.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by mikemorrellNL

[michael_kucinich]

Wonderful subject, well exposed. The issue to me is that the lighting in the sky versus the subject does not seem to match, at least to my eye.

[hjoseph7]

I like the unique and original colors, sharpness and composition,  just not too crazy about the Vignetting effect 

[Robin Smith]

I keep thinking it is a view of Mars. The light on Yosemite (shining from behind you) is hopelessly inconsistent with the sky (sun in front of the observer), which is why it looks otherworldly, also the low contrast on half dome is jarringly different to the sky and the rest of the contrast. So unfortunately it ends up looking very obviously a composite, which is another way of saying it looks fake. Why not pick a non-sunset if you want to replace the sky?

Edited June 6, 2023 by Robin Smith