Handheld panorama, and a reverse GND

These were shot on 2 separate nights, with a hand held 3 stop reverse gnd, 16-35II on a 5d2. I stayed longer the second night, after the sun was set.
Please tell me which you like better and what you think
1

Definitely between 1 and 3 for me. Both are great.

#1 for me - although they all look nice. The only thing that bothers me is it seems you have a bit of distortion going - in #1, #2 you have a straight horizon but the right side of the bay looks to be "uphill" from the left side more than my eye perceives as natural. A little bit of "transform" could solve that if you were so inclined. Its not as evident in #3. Also, I think I like the perspective a bit better in #3 with the rock walls framing the edge a bit more. I think Im changing my answer to #3.

Even left as they are, nice images - good job!

Easy choice for me: #3 is preferred. The colors are richer and, more importantly, the perspective is better as the foreground landscape features are dramatically pulled nearer, giving them a more impressive relative scale. The first image, by comparison, is flat and less interesting (to me), but the third one uses the foreground elements to frame the image.

I'm not as certain about the hue of the sky in the third one. I like the increased level of saturation, but it might be a touch too saturated and a touch too ultramarine in hue...maybe.

Nice study!

David Arbogast wrote in post #12997548
Easy choice for me: #3 is preferred. The colors are richer and, more importantly, the perspective is better as the foreground landscape features are dramatically pulled nearer, giving them a more impressive relative scale. The first image, by comparison, is flat and less interesting (to me), but the third one uses the foreground elements to frame the image.

I'm not as certain about the hue of the sky in the third one. I like the increased level of saturation, but it might be a touch too saturated and a touch too ultramarine in hue...maybe.

Nice study!

thank you. I used Nik software brilliant sky, and it was 3 times darker and more saturated, to the point that my eye was hurting!. so I toned it back some. but I hear what you are saying. thanks for the detailed input

MNUplander wrote in post #12996852
#1 for me - although they all look nice. The only thing that bothers me is it seems you have a bit of distortion going - in #1, #2 you have a straight horizon but the right side of the bay looks to be "uphill" from the left side more than my eye perceives as natural. A little bit of "transform" could solve that if you were so inclined. Its not as evident in #3. Also, I think I like the perspective a bit better in #3 with the rock walls framing the edge a bit more. I think Im changing my answer to #3.

Even left as they are, nice images - good job!

thank you for your detailed feedback buddy.

I'm a beginner amateur at post processing, so maybe it is inappropriate for me to comment, but the third has me highly motivated as I like it so very much. There is detail in the sky to the right, the land all across the top ridge and in the foreground water that is hidden by the darkness. I'm wondering if there is a way to bring the detail up without the sunlight dominating. I would also want to open up the shadowed foreground on the left just a smidgen.

No-brainer for me. Definitely No. 3. No. 2 looks a bit washed out to me and doesn't have much of interest in the sky. No. 1 is warmer than No. 2, which I like, and the dark blue of the sky adds some nice contrast not present in No. 2. But for some reason I find the little wispy clouds in No. 1 kind of distracting. It's like they're clear enough to be noticeable but not enough to be an important component of the image. And the sun and flare in both Nos. 1 and 2 seem to really catch my eye and draw it away from what I think is the best part of the photo -- the bowl-shaped imagery. No. 3 has none of those problems and really drives home the cool shape of the image. That's my two cents anyway. Where did you shoot this? Looks familiar to me.

thanks Randy. Palos Verdes, california.

Nice shot. I prefer #3. The colors are better, the foreground is better, and it draws me in where 1 & 2 don't give me the same reaction. Somehow 1 & 2 feel like snap shots compared to #3 being a work of art I want to study.

Nice pictures. I would go with #3 and #1. Excellent composition, if it is ok, can you tell me which GND filter you use. (make, soft or hard)

Pcanon, its a hitech 3 stop reverse gnd. I dont think the reverse has a hard or soft. its useful for sunset/sunrise shots, to maximally darken the horizon line, without darkening the sky as much.

kevindar wrote in post #13004874
thanks Randy. Palos Verdes, california.

Thanks. I know the area.

The intensity of color makes three win for me. The centeredness of the object makes it a little too static in composition. Not sure how to change that.

I go with 2 and 3 Kevin.