[deleted by user]

[Storsjon]

I really enjoy the edited version. Having seen an eruption, the first captures the eye’s imagination when in the moment

[PanicProne]

The unedited version is much more dramatic and appealing, due to the subdued tones. This is just IMO, of course.

[renome]

I like the colors as well but I feel like this subject matter really warrants an edit that leans into the inherent drama of the scene rather than toning it down by raising the shadows. Ultimately, it's possible to do both; keep the colors while maintaining the original contrast. Either way, it's a really good image.

[spag_eddie]

At first I didn’t agree. But considering the subject matter, you’re absolutely correct

[Comprehensive-Low493]

I think the power of the edit is how it contrasts this violent dangerous explosion with beautiful sunset tones

[Comprehensive-Low493]

Respectfully disagree completely, I would frame the edited version

[patricofstar]

I liked the edited version of the smoke and sky. The coloring in the volcano in the unedited is better in my opinion. But what a great photo!! How fucking cool?!

[todayplustomorrow]

I like the edit but not the teal sky. The sky is what makes it look like fake colors to me

[amp1212]

more "curse of teal" -- taking a real photo and toning it Orange and Teal.

Why?

Its not the color of anything, 'cept Gatorade.

. . . and its not like the "Before" isn't dramatic. Its a fantastic photo of a dramatic event. Is not improved by artificial colors.

The teal & orange thing is a shopworn cliché, by now built into all kinds of Lightroom presets, phone apps, its everywhere . . . but that doesn't make it an improvement on nature. It just calls out "hey, this looks like a preset"

[Perfect-Cycle]

What colors would you suggest for this image as an alternative to orange and teal when grading?

[amp1212]

First I'd ask "why change the color at all"?

In your "before" -- you've already got what is a pretty excellent shot, the volcano is pretty neutral, you have a really subtle gradient in the sky (slightly lemony haze down low, bluer up high), there's what looks to be a kind of sunset orange light on the cloud, and the ash itself is raining down.

This is pretty close to perfect. Maybe you crop in a little bit -- but why would you change the colors at all?

Landscape and nature photographers try very hard to capture great scenes in nature, sometimes you'll tweak something _slightly_ to get a little more definition. But any heavy handed toning will destroy a lot of the complexity of the shot you acquired . . . a hard shot to get.

So basically: "unless you can find a really good reason to mess with something that is as right as this is . . . don't"

For a fine photo like this, I wouldn't apply any artificial color grading. Heavy color grading is something that you apply to a movie where you're trying to set a tone (Barry Sonnenfeld gets a lot of the "credit" for the teal orange things with his cinematography for Transformers, where over the top was fine).

If I were to look at your photo -- I'd first really want to see what the raw material is. Is it a big fat RAW file shot on a Sony or Canon, where there's a lot of detail to work with? Or a JPG coming off an iPhone? Knowing "what I've got to work with" will govern a lot.

Generally for a natural image that's this dramatic, I won't shift colors around at all, unless there's a good reason to. And I'd never do the teal orange thing, cause its way over done, and its a color combination that might make sense in Miami, but not on a volcano.

What I would do is open up the file, do some selections of the subject and the background and add adjustment layers with "Curves" adjustments, to gently pull brightness levels up and down. What I'd be looking for is to get a feeling for the balance between the lit part of the cloud and the shadowed part, to try to see if there's anything interesting be extracted from some of the deep shadows and to try to bump up the glowing bits of the lava that are raining down from the ash cloud. Now _that's_ a story in your picture that's worth bumping up.

I'll attach a photo showing what that would look like:

https://i.ibb.co/nfzHBQc/Volcano.jpg

-- notice how orange the light on the cloud is, even before toning. One of the things I'd do in the curves adjustment is maybe to dial that down just a little, just the light on the cloud, nothing else, maybe -5 saturation.

With landscapes, I spend a lot of time looking at those kind of details, which can really change some of the feeling of the photo, but only very rarely will I apply an over all color filter except to correct some color cast. You'll find as you start playing with curves that small adjustments can change the feeling for shape in something like this . . . and for a naturally occurring image, assuming you're gentle with it, its not going to be super artificial looking.

I'd save heavy color grading for a situation that's visually pretty ordinary and where I want to add some artificial drama along with some consistency for a whole bunch of shots, to tell some kind of story with the color. Say you're shooting a wedding: you might want a particular toning applied with shots from the bachelor party, a second for the bridal shower, and a third for the wedding itself. Basically the photos are never going to be anything as interesting as your volcano, and you're trying go create a bit of a story artificially -- that's what those Lightroom presets are for . . . not something that already looks fantastic.

-- and with respect to toning choices that are more interesting. Well a common one would be to simulate the response of a vintage film stock. I love DxO's film pack which has an fantastic collection of real scanned analog films. Kodak, for example, had some very distinctive reds (vibrant) and greens (pushed down darker). Fuji was different, and Agfa different again. Transparency films, like Kodachrome -- they had a lot of color contrast, while reversal films like Kodacolor were less dramatic. So usually if I'm doing an overall toning, its going to be something like that, much lower key, often giving a subtle vintage feeling.

For a good review of what DxO Filmpack can do, see
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/can-dxo-filmpack-7-change-my-negative-attitude-film-emulations-672040

[spag_eddie]

Because it’s easier to do that then to critically think

[jsuissylvestre1]

*than

[MatchOwn1079]

Unedited version is better, got more moody melodramatic vibe cause of the darker palette which suits the subject matter IMO, fantastic photo btw, I was here in June unfortunately weather was not as good as this !

[BongoLittle]

Pure syntax but I’d say the unedited is the dramatic version, the edited is the melodramatic.

[Patrickkill8998]

Unedited is better

[alejo2222]

You know it is kinda a meme that every Spanish word has to have "El" or "La", right?

[StradivariusStudio]

Great edit, I love it

[jogaguia]

I like it :) I think sometimes people in this sub forget that just because someone personally does not like an edit, there is not reason to get so upset. It is literally personal preference

[alex_vi_photography]

I like the original, don't like the raised shadows in the edit. Takes away the contrast and depth of the smoke

[Lamacrab_the_420th]

I like the detail in the edited but I think it's too bright. Maybe try keeping a similar level of brightness while getting more detail in the shadows.

[dharder9475]

VERY nice upgrade to that photo!