[ray]

Can i have comment's please about composition and my editing skills
1,

2,

[AQ]

Qiuite like No1 although the sky is a bit dark. Perhaps it is my screen at work. That foreground is very striking . Did you replace the sky as there does seem to be a white halo along the top of the trees especialy on the left. Cut outs like this are quite difficult to do. But there are plenty of tutorials around to help. If the sky is original I apologise.

Not so sure about 2. There is no real focal point and it looks a bit like a record shot of where you were. On the other hand it does look to be a great place for looking for wild flowers and orchids later in the year. Where was it taken.

[water]

Hi Ray.I'm assuming you added a new sky to No1 or made a 'selection' of the sky and did some heavy Curves/Levels?.The tree line is showing the tell tale signs of this and trying to rectify this would,I imagine,take patience and quite a high degree of editing skills and I cannot help you there.I wonder too if the slightly broody sky actually fits with the brightness of the rest of the scene?Also,for me,I would be tempted to tone down the Red in the scene by doing a bit of 'Minus' Saturation.I sometimes have to do some minus saturation on individual colours when I use the Saturation tool in 'master' mode.I know that the reds of the grass/vegetation would have been quite vivid as you saw them but the saturation has also affected the trees.However,it appears a nice scene and sometimes they don't need eye-popping colour to be pleasing.I,personally,would like to see a more natural/unworked shot as a comparison?.
No2 seems a wee bit 'static'.Perhaps because the bridge/trees/water are not only central in the frame but also on a line of 1/3rds horizontally.It strikes me I am not being led into and through the view so much as having my gaze anchored on that central portion.The footpath does run nicely through the frame on a diagonal line but the bridge/stream/trees overpower it.A dozen or so paces to the left,with the camera facing the steps through the trees.?Maybe even in vertical format?.Maybe a tweak using curves here to give a bit of contrast and some depth of colour? [jings,thats the opposite of what I said for No1]
Both are pleasant images and you have posted some crackers here so I hope you don't mind my comments but I took you at your word and it goes without saying that this is only my opinion.
Keep up the good work,
John.

[ray]

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

Qiuite like No1 although the sky is a bit dark. Perhaps it is my screen at work. That foreground is very striking . Did you replace the sky as there does seem to be a white halo along the top of the trees especialy on the left. Cut outs like this are quite difficult to do. But there are plenty of tutorials around to help. If the sky is original I apologise.

Not so sure about 2. There is no real focal point and it looks a bit like a record shot of where you were. On the other hand it does look to be a great place for looking for wild flowers and orchids later in the year. Where was it taken.

Right at the top if ingleton falls

[ray]

Originally Posted by water

Hi Ray.I'm assuming you added a new sky to No1 or made a 'selection' of the sky and did some heavy Curves/Levels?.The tree line is showing the tell tale signs of this and trying to rectify this would,I imagine,take patience and quite a high degree of editing skills and I cannot help you there.I wonder too if the slightly broody sky actually fits with the brightness of the rest of the scene?Also,for me,I would be tempted to tone down the Red in the scene by doing a bit of 'Minus' Saturation.I sometimes have to do some minus saturation on individual colours when I use the Saturation tool in 'master' mode.I know that the reds of the grass/vegetation would have been quite vivid as you saw them but the saturation has also affected the trees.However,it appears a nice scene and sometimes they don't need eye-popping colour to be pleasing.I,personally,would like to see a more natural/unworked shot as a comparison?.
No2 seems a wee bit 'static'.Perhaps because the bridge/trees/water are not only central in the frame but also on a line of 1/3rds horizontally.It strikes me I am not being led into and through the view so much as having my gaze anchored on that central portion.The footpath does run nicely through the frame on a diagonal line but the bridge/stream/trees overpower it.A dozen or so paces to the left,with the camera facing the steps through the trees.?Maybe even in vertical format?.Maybe a tweak using curves here to give a bit of contrast and some depth of colour? [jings,thats the opposite of what I said for No1]
Both are pleasant images and you have posted some crackers here so I hope you don't mind my comments but I took you at your word and it goes without saying that this is only my opinion.
Keep up the good work,
John.

No problem and thank you water No1 is one of those photo's that i like and i really wouldnt like to change it, but i will concede that to a photographer it's probably a mess, but someone a few days ago said if you like it thats all that matters thank you ...Ray
PS yes i did add the sky my first attempt

[AQ]

Originally Posted by ray

No problem and thank you water No1 is one of those photo's that i like and i really wouldnt like to change it, but i will concede that to a photographer it's probably a mess, but someone a few days ago said if you like it thats all that matters thank you ...Ray
PS yes i did add the sky my first attempt

Ray. I have had that attitude for many years but suggestions are always a good thing as you can completly ignore them if you want to

It is posible to get better at replacing skys and the more you do the easier it becomes. Keep trying - it can be a steep learning curve.

[ray]

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

Ray. I have had that attitude for many years but suggestions are always a good thing as you can completly ignore them if you want to

It is posible to get better at replacing skys and the more you do the easier it becomes. Keep trying - it can be a steep learning curve.

Right thank you ant

[Rob Barron]

I love the colours and the natural curve of the FG in the first one and actually don't think this needed a new sky at all. If you do want to add a sky, try this method as it is overcomes the tell-tale signs of the halo and treeline....

Choose your sky carefully, preferably one that has some detail in the higher part and fades into clear sky lower down.

Now with the image you want a new sky on, usually this will have a pretty plain sky which is why you're replacing it in the first place! So, do a selection using the rectangular marquee tool that selects all of the main part of the picture and about a centimetre or more (depending on the sky you're adding) of the sky.

Now feather the selection by about 30 pixels (at low res, more for a printable version). Copy this selection to a new layer (Ctrl+J) and then switch off the background layer (click the eye icon on the layers pallet.

Do the same with the new sky, make a marquee selection that gets all the top part and about an inch or so from the bottom. Feather this by the same amount.

Now copy that selection of sky over to the new picture (just hit V and then drag it across)

Because you now have a very soft feathered line across the sky line, the two will blend much more naturally and you'll not have a tell-tale halo anywhere

Hope that helps. I'll make this into a proper tutorial with pictures and screenshots so you can see it better in action.

Cheers,
Rob

[ray]

Right thank you Rob

[WOODY]

RAY I LIKE THE COLOURS IN ONE NICE SHOT. IN THE SECOND SHOT I THINK IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN BETTER TO MAKE A FOCAL POINT OF THE BRIDGE AND STREAM, RATHER
THAN HAVE THE MASS OF HILLS ABOVE IT .

[water]

Originally Posted by ray

No problem and thank you water No1 is one of those photo's that i like and i really wouldnt like to change it, but i will concede that to a photographer it's probably a mess, but someone a few days ago said if you like it thats all that matters thank you ...Ray
PS yes i did add the sky my first attempt

And that person was quite right Ray.As for the sky,with practice and perseverence,you will master these editing skills.
Cheers
John.

Edit: Ray,I also take pictures for myself.Photography is not even my main hobby so I am not a "photographer".Also,these two shots are not "a mess".You have presented them as how you wish them to be seen/remembered which brings us nicely back to your friends advice

[Rob Barron]

Tutorial now added here:

Add a new sky using Photoshop - Pixalo Photography Community

Hope you find it helpful. Read it through a couple of times and you'll soon get the hang of it. If you want to practice with the same pics, I'll happily email them to anyone who wants them to give it a go

Cheers,
Rob

[b.van_der_dylan]

No 2 for me. Thanks for the tutorial Rob.