My new favorite sunset.

This picture is gorgeous. I prefer the crop as well, the flare I have mixed feelings about.

Normally, lens flare especially one as small as this,doesn't bother me, but this one can distract. I'll explain why I feel this way a bit later.

I didn't even notice the "cool" feeling until it was pointed out. So, I spent some time trying to figure out why it seemed this way because it wasn't immediately apparent , and thought I'd share.

corkneyfonz wrote in post #12622255
Apart from that big dose of flare, there's little to suggest that the sun is going down. It could be a digital thing but this looks a little too "sterile".

It seems each of the main areas are separate from each other: sky, treeline, pasture. At a near equal distance from you, and the sun, but on the other side of the photo from the flare is a green pasture. My thought process went something like "that flare sure is red over there, why isn't that pasture getting any of that red cast?"
If there was a continuous treeline, that maintained an approx equal distance from you, I don't think it would come across this way.
However, this part of the pasture extends quite a distance past the trees, and I would expect the sunlight to bleed into this area just a little bit, but it seems the clouds are blocking/diffusing the sunlight right in that area. Because of the flare, and because of it being pointed out, the lack of sunlight is more apparent.

The only flare that bothers me is the little red dot near the center. Don't get me wrong, I love sun flare in portraits, but not always in landscapes. It's just a little distracting. I don't mind all the light on the trees, though. Also, in your edit, the colors look less vibrant than before. Maybe it's just me.

hey,
i quite like the imagine. i prefer the cropped version and, as someone said, i think a little bit warmth would give it still a little boost.

You said somewhere that you have cropped also some foreground. What was in the foreground? Some more fields? Have you tried cropping the original so that you have the horizon line in the UPPER third of the picture?
well, it was just an idea!

Ah, and i also like the flare!

I would crop it even more. Still too much negative space.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #12641012
I would crop it even more. Still too much negative space.

? ? ?

It's a landscape. There is no negative space.

Love the picture after the crop,
I would have liked to see more of the interesting foreground though

Love it! I don't mind flares either and in fact I often prefer them. I'd hang it on my wall!

Radtech1 wrote in post #12641710
? ? ?

It's a landscape. There is no negative space.

You might want to look up the definition of negative space then.

But in case you don't I'll provide it here:
"negative space is the empty space around the subject"

This can happen in landscape images as it clearly does in this image in the upper portion where the empty sky is.

I love the colours, and sorry to sy, the crop as weell! this would work great as a framed panoram- as big as you can get it!

Lovely work, was it long exposure to get that lovely light in the hills?

GorgeShooter wrote in post #12646824
But in case you don't I'll provide it here:
"negative space is the empty space around the subject"

- sigh -

Ya buy 'em books, and all they do is eat 'em.

You know how to type the definition of negative space, but you can't think past the first half of that sentence. C'mon, think it through now: "negative space is the empty space around the subject" Now, what does that definition require? Two things, 1) A Subject and 2) Empty Space around it.

In a portrait, you have a subject, and around them, on a different focal plane, you have the negative space. A still life, you the subject, and around it, on a different focal plane, you have the negative space. The very definition of negative space requires a subject and a ground.

But what if you don't have a discrete "subject", or alternatively, what if the whole photograph - border to border - is the "subject"? Then what? The definition collapses.

In the case of a landscape, in the case of this landscape, the entire shot is on one focal plane. The whole thing is the subject - or, if you want, there is no subject at all. Either way, there is no "Negative Space" because there is no defined subject.

An empty area, simply by virtue of being empty, does not mean "Negative Space".

Here are some links that should enhance your education.

And next time, try not to get so snarky about things you don't understand. Just say, "I meant empty space." and leave it at that.

Education

Negative Space - Adobe Layers Magazine
(Best - One of the clearest essays on Negative Space that I know of - take a look at the airplane or the toucan examples, and try to do a cutout like that with my shot. It should become clear.)

The Positive Impact of Negative Space in Photography

Adding Negative and Positive Spaces in Your Artwork


Examples
(Notice that every single one has a discrete subject, not a landscape in the lot!)

http://www.artfans.inf​o …negative-space-technique/

http://www.photoble.co​m …open-space-in-photography

http://www.advancedpho​tography.net …gative-space-photography/

leskent wrote in post #12645148
Love the picture after the crop,
I would have liked to see more of the interesting foreground though

Thank you very much. From this point of view, there was a road in the foreground - which I cropped out before the first post.

j-mar wrote in post #12645682
Love it! I don't mind flares either and in fact I often prefer them. I'd hang it on my wall!

Thank you - I like them too, but general opinion seems to be going the other way. If I offer this for sale, I will most likely clone them out.

Ekir wrote in post #12646843
I love the colours, and sorry to sy, the crop as weell! this would work great as a framed panoram- as big as you can get it!

Lovely work, was it long exposure to get that lovely light in the hills?

I expect to print it this weekend. Probably 24 x 40. As to the exposure, I had the camera on a tripod, and ran multiple techniques. One ended up great for the sky, another for the hills (this was the one that was f/11, 1/25 - which was the only exposure info I had handy when I made my first post), and this is a blend of those two. Kind of a "Poor man's" HDR!

Thanks for the compliments.

Rad

I actually really enjoy the original. I was trying to do a sunset today and must commend you on this! Did you post process to balance the exposure of the grass?

Glueeater wrote in post #12648351
I actually really enjoy the original. I was trying to do a sunset today and must commend you on this! Did you post process to balance the exposure of the grass?

I had the camera mounted on a tripod, and shot several exposures and chose the two best one - one for the sky and one for the fields. They were blended in Photoshop - zoomed down to the pixel level, to make sure there was no edge between the two exposures - to get the photograph to look like the sunset I saw.

Thanks for the kind words.

Rad

PS - your username cracks me up! Just thinking about it, I can taste the kindergarten paste!