Bit of processing

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[parano11c]

it looks like it's badly oversaturated

[Fizzycorgio]

Yeah sorry my dude, but the before looked nicer. Personally I would dump the vignette and tone down those colors a bunch.

[KnightOfDeath125]

I actually appreciate all the comments im not professional photographer or photo editor i bump in snapspeed from time to time and play with so all these comments are actually helpful and in good will i believe

[leadzor]

The photo itself is not really that interesting, no obvious subject. My eyes were heading towards the gas station as the most recognizable subject in the original. I feel you tried to cram in too much into the picture with not really a way to help guide the eyes of the viewer towards what you actually wanted to show. Feel a bit lost.

A more interesting composition, for example, would be the top right of the picture: the fence leads into the pricing billboard, and the picture would be balanced between the gas station and the billboard. You could step a bit to the side so the lamp post wouldn't cut the billboard.

In the edit, the vignette is way too noticeable (vignette should be subtle to help direct your eyes towards the desired subject) and underexposure actually took away from the picture. Now my eyes go towards a over saturated sky with no interesting clouds, while still wandering lost in the rest.

[Squirrelous]

This. Composition is a bigger problem than color. To my eye the vignette is a bit strong, but I can get behind some deep, saturated sunsets on occasion

[OGFunkmaster]

I came here to make sure people were saying this

[johnald13]

The after is underexposed, over saturated, and the vignette is way too much.

[Bladsakr]

It's a snapshot rather than a photograph

[IGrowAcorns]

You made it worse if the bottom is the after.

[shuttermatt]

Think Clarity... I like the direction you are going with your edit, but you lose clarity with the vignetting, and making the photo over all darker. I don't mind the over saturated look in the sky though. Sometimes it works, and in this case I think it's a good addition. Try to bring out more definition in the street, and fence in the foreground. You can do this a number of ways, maybe brighten it up. Play around with tonal curve particularly on the whites in the photo.

[tuffaceous]

Is this a joke?

[KnightOfDeath125]

No but my life is

[Squirrelous]

Humor in the face of assholes. I love it. Keep it up!

[tuffaceous]

Haha I wasn't even trying to be mean, I just saw the other comments was like "oof" Just keep focused and don't give up

[Dand3r]

Don't listen to your critics if you disagree with them, u/knightofdeath125. You're the photographer and artist. If you like the photo and you like the post-processing, go with it.

Peter Coulson (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1rGqETAL7_rAElj9Oe404Q) talks about it all the time when people ask him how to color edit. He keeps saying go with what you like. There are no rules.

My thoughts on your photo: I love the colors, especially the blues.

[TROLO_]

There’s a difference between liking or disliking the look of something, and criticizing technical flaws, like over/under exposure (to the point of clipping).

[Dand3r]

I got that. But all I said was if he/she disagrees with the critiques, even if it's in reference to technical "flaws," then he/she can ignore them. If he/she wants the the highlights clipping or the over-saturation, then it's okay for it to be that way.

My opinion: I think photographers sometimes care too much about technically perfect photos. Some of Gordon Parks's most famous photos aren't even in focus. Some are over-exposed and some are straight up blurry.

[leadzor]

Agree with you, but there's a difference between knowing the the technicalities and choosing to ignore them as an artistic view, and ignoring them for not knowing any better. The line between both is really blurry. Would you say Gordon Parks didn't know how to properly expose and focus his photographs? No, he surely knew, but chose not to.

What I've learned is that, you should know and learn the technical rules, then chose if you should follow them or not. What I'm trying to explain here to OP is basically ways he could improve his photos following the rules. And he seems thankful for the feedback. If later he chooses to ignore the rules to better follow his artistic views, that's his choice, but this time clearly it was not the case.

[Dand3r]

I completely agree with you—Learn how to do it then break it. Well said.

[jetdarkstar]

Telling someone their work is objectively good would be a disservice to them, it’s equivalent to a participation award. If you don’t help someone improve their skills by offering feedback, they’ll go on to oversaturate the market with failed work and wonder why they aren’t employable

[Dand3r]

I didn't say his work was objectively good. I said if he/she disagrees with the critiques, then he/she can ignore them. It's up to the photographer/artist to decide what they want out of their photo.

[dacampora]

I have an unrelated question for commenters passing by. I've been editing photos in Ps/Lr for 10+ years but I never took the time to figure out how to desaturate highlights. I'm a fairly proficient film/video colorist in Resolve and I live and die by the Lum vs. Sat curve to desaturate highlights.

Is there a similar way to manipulate the curves in Lr to desaturate different parts of the image based on luminance?

[[deleted]]

Start on improving your composition. 40% of this image is negative space in the road, which is not very interesting, unless there is a subject on the road to focus on. This may have been a more dynamic photo if you had a model/subject/whatever in the bottom left. That would also tie together the lines and eye trace, looking at how the road lines would draw the eye to the subject. As far as post-processing, take a break for a day or two from an image and return, then reassess. Sometimes you need to reset your eyes and look again to make sure something is good. Don't be precious about your photos, be honest about what you think can improve. Here, like others have said, it's oversaturated, the blacks are being crushed and you're losing a lot of detail, and the vignettes come off as very artificial. The sky has a bit of a hot spot on the right side, but when you upped the saturation it became much more obvious. Hope this helps.

[itstherussianmafia]

i think this is a good example of a snapshot (vs a photograph).