Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RedBearUK
2 years ago

It is heavily reworked (deep sky object layered into a boring landscape) – but the idea is not bad 🙂

On the horizon it could be a bit softer in the transition. The image breaks apart and makes it very noticeable (apart from the fact that such an image cannot have been created in a passage anyway).

Then maybe work with the golden cut – and it could be a nice post-processing.

RomySeaLion
2 years ago

Hi, I find it falling on both pictures that the sky is fake, however it is not a thorn in the eye =)

I would say in the first picture the sky is cheesy, but still relatively real, in the second picture it affects me (can also not be so for others) as if you have snipped/built two different (real) images together, so that the sky looks real and the earth also, but that does not fit both in combination.

Hope I could help you LG

Uneternal
2 years ago

Look out both fakes,

at the second, it is even more unbelievable because the landscape becomes brighter and then suddenly dark sky comes. It doesn’t fit.

On the branches it is noticed on both pictures that it is probably a cheap 1-click app.

XxPizza111
2 years ago

I find the second picture looks more chewed

levinborkow
2 years ago

The 2nd looks faker because you would never see this in real heaven 👍🏿

juergen63225
2 years ago

I’m usually more against all-embracing manipulations. But such a sky from the retort sometimes makes really great results.

Here with Luminar Neo:

B4roaming
2 years ago

No 2 much faker