Kirksanton Standing Stones

[iangreenhalgh1]

First one is 3 images stitched, second is 8 images, third is 12 images.


#1

#2

#3

[Orio]

Nice work and great 3D effect!!

I appreciate that you didn't overdo the HDR, your photo looks much better this way than what you typically do when pushing on the HDR.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers. I got very bored of HDR so had a break from it for a few months. This was (obviously) shot in great light so I didn't have to do much processing, most of my prior HDR work was battling less than ideal light conditions which makes it much harder to stay on the right side of that line between enhanced and overdone.

The lens was my Hexanon 1.4/50 at f8, it has quite a bit of 3D, I focused on the nearest of the two stones.

Do you have a preference from the three? I think I prefer #2, but not sure.

[David]

My preference is number 3. It follows the foreground-background rule. Do you know how many frames they are by the number of times that dirt speck appears in each image? I'm kidding, of course, and have no highground here as last weekend I spent 35 minutes editing dirt specs out of the sky on a 36-image stitch.

The first one is so dominated by the subjects that they feel oppressive. It's visually pleasing but psychologically more difficult. The second is fine, but there's something lacking in the 'large hill's' coloration that the third has. Did the two series have a different aperture setting? That could account for a color variation.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks for the feedback.

They are all shot at f8. Not sure why there is a slight difference in colouration, I suspect it is down to photoshop when it was stitching the images.

The dirt is actually three birds, I wasn't sure whether to keep them or clone them out.

[Orio]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers Orio, I guess I must have sub-consciously realised there was more space needed to the right, hence I shot more frames to be able to include more to the right.

How's this for a bluer sky? Just selected the sky and turned up the vibrance: