Photoshoped Clouds

I took a picture up in Tahoe over the last weekend and wasnt too happy with it because there wasnt a cloud in the sky. I took another shot of just clouds that I had and added it. What do you think? Its my first attempt. Im not much of a Photoshop person.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Too big for me Scott..they dwarf the mountains.

The clouds certain revitalise your image. However, the b/w conversion looks as if one or maybe 2 of the photoshop colour sliders have been maxed out resulting in a slightly over contrasty looking foreground.

Flo wrote in post #10837214
Too big for me Scott..they dwarf the mountains.

How would I make them smaller? Any ideas?

I like the foreground element but the bright clouds are way too bright (blown out). As far as the first comment, you could crop out some of the sky. But it seems that your intent was to capture clouds so I'd leave the cropping alone and focus on improving the clouds giving them more detail and hence drama. IMO the mountains are a secondary element. The foreground and clouds are first and second respectively.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #10838294
I like the foreground element but the bright clouds are way too bright (blown out). As far as the first comment, you could crop out some of the sky. But it seems that your intent was to capture clouds so I'd leave the cropping alone and focus on improving the clouds giving them more detail and hence drama. IMO the mountains are a secondary element. The foreground and clouds are first and second respectively.

Thanks for the opinion. Appreciated. Ill see what I can do about getting more out of the clouds. Here is the original straight out of the camera, in case anyone was curious:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

^ hands down the best.why bother with all the silly editing when you have this?Color, sharpness, lovely blues....

HA! Thanks, Gail. I know you are a fan of blue skies. I just get bored I guess. Thanks for the kind words.

I think the clouds add interest compared to a boring sky with nothing in it.

Perhaps it's just me, but perhaps looking at the 'rule of thirds' may help the picture. The shoreline and horizon cut the picture in two.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #10839008
I think the clouds add interest compared to a boring sky with nothing in it.

Why is the sky the subject? For me, the rock in the foreground and the vista are? Just wondering why clouds always have to be dramatic....

Agree with Sab as well....

Good point and question Gail. A popular theme in landscape is fill the frame with natural textures. Atmospherics tend to add interest to an image however if a space free from texture relates to other similar spaces the composition works equally well and gravitates toward shape as the significant identity in the image.

For an image like this I prefer a panoramic crop.

Critique:
The rock stack isn't really working with the rest of the scenic. It is positioned in a precarious place in the frame where it sits in the middle and collides with the mountain range in the back. A higher POV is what is required to place these rocks correctly in the frame. The underwater rocks are enticing but support this centered rock cluster, that is, they aren't helping the composition even though they are interesting to the eye.

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

Agree with you Joe 100%

Flo wrote in post #10839168
Why is the sky the subject? For me, the rock in the foreground and the vista are? Just wondering why clouds always have to be dramatic....

1. I never said the sky was the subject. I said the foreground and the clouds were the subject (my opinion). In fact I mentioned the foreground rock twice so obviously I think it is a dominant and important feature in the image.

2. I don't recall saying (or implying) that "clouds always have to be dramatic". My point (obviously missed) was that a cloudless sky is boring. Clouds add interest (again...MY opinion).

3. The mountains are too small in the frame to be a dominant feature...therefore they are secondary (my last opinion). They definitely add interest, but are not a focal point in the image.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #10843678
1. I never said the sky was the subject. I said the foreground and the clouds were the subject (my opinion). In fact I mentioned the foreground rock twice so obviously I think it is a dominant and important feature in the image.

2. I don't recall saying (or implying) that "clouds always have to be dramatic". My point (obviously missed) was that a cloudless sky is boring. Clouds add interest (again...MY opinion).

3. The mountains are too small in the frame to be a dominant feature...therefore they are secondary (my last opinion). They definitely add interest, but are not a focal point in the image.

ACH.I surely didn;t mean it as an affront you you Gorge:o I was talking outloud..and made a wide assumption.Sorry.

No.The implication on the clouds was solely mine.I like blue skies.I am a sucker for them..but if there clouds are there already, and they need a punch.sweet!

All in all , Scott.sorry, this one just doesn't work well, but thats me, I am very sure any one of my photos would be in need of much improvement as well.