Family portrait, which version?

I removed six of your attached images for exceeding posting rules, please review IMAGE POSTING RULES,https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=51022 .

#2 for sure - erupting heads are never well accepted.

NUMBer 2

I agree with the rest, the 2nd one isn't bad, but I'd probably do a little cloning on the right side of the mom on the bright spots there too, to me it doesn't look right when you clone it out next to the dad but leave it next to the mom.
Other than that its great.

Or, how about something like this as an alternative?
Cut out the tree on the right, using an alias of 10, flipped it horizontally (so the branch patterns were not identical) then pasted it as a separate layer.
Cut out a "copy" of the males head, and pasted as another layer (in front of the tree)
Slid the new tree behind the head. Did some touching up around the edges of the new tree using the healing tool.
Didn't touch the colours - which I think could benefit from a tweek here and there.
Took less than 5 minutes (although could do a better job on the full-size original)

TJ

Sorry, the re-saved version was well over the 100K limit. Ive saved it again but the quality is rubbish. Hopefully it gives an idea of what I was trying to do (what started as a quick 5 minute job has now turned into a 20 minute struggle)

Hmm....I might have to try that with the orignal file.

Thanks for the idea!

2nd one!

hope you dont mind. Think this is a great shot but sorely missing contrast.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Dante...

I agree it's a little short on contrast, I spent about 5 minutes on curves and shadow/hightlight alone just to get a good mixture of shadows and try to tone down the blow outs on the rocks on the right and well... Only so much you can do after the picture is taken. It might be my monitor, but the version you posted seems to have lost a lot of detail in the trees and a weird ghoasting around the group.