Is it possible to make a bleak landscape pop..?

Already posted in the Landscapes forum, apologies to anyone who's already seen it. I've just noticed that this forum exists, though

This is, I think, the first time I've used my 10-22 for a landscape shot. England is generally too flat and wide open to justify it.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Mmm... I do like it as it is, if I had time I might run it through PS and fiddle with curves to see if it doesn't "pop" a bit more but it has nice muted tones as it stands which suit the content.

as far as the horizon goes it all looks fine to me, you've probably been looking at it too long

I definitely think it's not overdone HDR.

Stunning shot. Just the way the soft lighting on rolling hills lead the eye away...

For the record, I also like it the way it is. Since you asked for "pop", how's this?
_

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

The processing on your original seems to match the processing you've done on your other images in your flickr, so I wouldn't really worry about adding more pop. It's a style that you're drawn too, and you should stick to it. You have many nice images in your gallery.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I worry sometimes that my dismal colour vision (I have that sort of colour blindness where reds merge with green but also appear dark because my eyes just don't have the appropriate bits for seeing red properly) makes proper processing impossible.

The washed out style appeals to me because I know it'll never be too gaudy, which is a mistake I could easily make.

Let me first say that I like it. But...
Like a lot of mine, it has no central point of interest and that drives a lot of folks up the wall.
I just don't give a rat's a_s about that. You do have a road that is really subtle.

Agree with others concerning the horizon.

I think the foreground is too bright and distracts from the depth of the scene. My mind wants this to be a dark, moody picture but the bottom is light and there are white specks on the rocks.

I like the original, seems very moody to me.

If you want more pop, I suppose boosting the saturation might help.
I had a very quick go in LAB mode on your original.
Don't know if this is what you're after.

How many shots did you combine for your HDR process?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I don't know about anyone else here but I find that levels is just great.

Also a bit of dodging and burning to bring out the highlights and shadows always does some good.

One thing that really makes a Landscape is interesting foreground detail. Like here you have the rocks but I think if you got a bit closer/lower it would have more impact on the whole image.

Thanks for the comments and the edits, all. If I'm honest - and again, this is to do with my colour vision, so I hope nobody's offended - I've put them all side by side, including the edit by exile in the other thread, and I really can't tell them apart very much. I know they're brighter, but that's all I can see.

The one that Dusty did looks the most striking, and what's very useful for me is that it's saturated to a level that I would normally start worrying was becoming garish if I was PPing it myself, because I just don't trust my own eyes enough. Good to know that I can start pushing the sliders a little bit further without making the image look like 1970s colour telly.

I guess the question is, does it look significantly better with the brightened and more vibrant tones, or does the original muted version still work? Again, I can't tell (this is why I like B&W so much).

Yeah, I was thinking that myself. One of the great advantages to the 10-22 is the similarly sharp focus of things 5cm from the lens and things 50km from the lens, and I've never really made use of that.

One CR2, exposed three ways (one for sky, one for ground, one normal).

It really makes a difference combining shots that have been bracketed in camera. If you don't have a tripod, as long as things aren't moving, Just handhold (depending on what kind of shutter speeds you are getting) the shots.

Simple curves & unsharp mask. 5 seconds or so. (Saved really low IQ for attachment)


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 293549 does not exist. ]

With using simple curves and USM, you sure done good cd, really looks better.

I had liked LD's version, now I don't know.

Leave it the way it is, plain and simple. It's a beautiful image and one that doesnt need any pop at all. The image as it is says more to me, feels more alive and real than any of the edits. When you first processed it you were going on your instinct and you should continue to. There is a beautifully barren, isolated feel to it that shouldnt feel too alive and if I had some spare cash, I'd buy a print of it.

Edit: And with regard to the horizon, its absolutely fine. There's enough with the central line, the road and the height of the mountain/hill?! on the right hand side to compensate and balance the shot. It looks like a natural lay of the land.

Heh.. if I had some spare cash, I'd print it, mount it, frame it and send it to you for the compliment

I suppose it's all just totally subjective, really. I, of course, had the advantage of being there when the shot was taken so my expectation of what it should look like will naturally be different to everyone elses'. Of course, on the other hand, making things look natural isn't always the same as making them look appealing, so I guess there's a balance to be struck.

Anyway, thank you all for the comments and the edits. I really appreciate it


Edit:

And, since you bring it up, the big hill is a mountain, although only just - it won't list very highly on the world tables at a less than majestic 815 metres. It's called The Cheviot, and it's the highest point in England outside the county of Cumbria.