It's rather amazing what a difference a few feet to the right, left, a bit high, lower, ect can make, as well as differences in processing.
I find Tim's the most pleasing to the eye - not quite as harsh with the contrast and shadows, and I like the framing with the dip in the mountain peaks centered. I feel Griffin's shot is a little off to the top right. Spencer's is like like a compromise between the two - my own opinion, of course!
What's most interesting, however - Tim's shot has a different sky than Griffin and Spencer. No clouds. Perhaps highlights were blown out. All Nikon's, so camera capabilities were likely identical.
Glad RP accepted all three - willingly or not.
I always said; "You can't have the best pictures on the 'Net" if you only accept the first pictures posted to the 'Net." Provides a nice learning experience as well. I've often seen similar pics as my own posted by fellow RP'r Kevin Madore - the answer to my unthought questions - what if I added more saturation (or less), or a warmer temperature (or cooler)... what if I stepped back a foot? Why didn't I (or he) include the secondary subject. Typically, the question resolved is: "What if I bought a Nikon instead of a Canon", lol.
It also often disproves shooting pics at a charter is like fishing for fish in the same pond!
Cool thread - thanks for creating it!
/Mitch
|
Linear Mode
