very blue? I specially d't normalize this image via "white" point and use defaulе profile in the new DxO... as is... IMO... blue?... but not very 4 Norway fjords... )
i don't understand your answer very well, but here's what i think about the image color: this was taken in the shadows (not lit by the sun) and even with the partly overcast sky, the sky illuminated the scene with a color temperature of around 10,000 to 14,000 degrees Kelvin, making it very blue. i'm sure when you took the photo, your eyes did not perceive as much blue as we see here. the blue can be seen everywhere, even in the greenery.
to my mind, it would not look "processed", but more natural, if you were to try it with colors as you saw them when you took the photo.
In most situations, the eyes/brain adapt to local color temperature and we don't see those wide deviations. once the brain has adapted to a specific color temp, whether it be 3000 or 16,000 degrees K., there is no difference, it all looks the same to us, but not to a camera, whether b/w or color.
this is not the first time i see this excess blue in your photos, but now i tell you this so i can know if you did it on purpose.
i'm sure this is more like the way you saw it, right?
this version does not have the "pop" of the former version, but it is much more representative of the way it looked to your eyes. i would call this one Hi-Fi and very nice; the former version looked like the small prints they make in amateur photolabs.
i have nothing against personal taste in processing a photograph, but here, it looked like amateurish work, which is unusual from you.
did you do this on purpose?
very blue? I specially d't normalize this image via "white" point and use defaulе profile in the new DxO... as is... IMO... blue?... but not very 4 Norway fjords...
this was taken in the shadows (not lit by the sun) and even with the partly overcast sky, the sky illuminated the scene with a color temperature
of around 10,000 to 14,000 degrees Kelvin, making it very blue.
i'm sure when you took the photo, your eyes did not perceive as much blue as we see here.
the blue can be seen everywhere, even in the greenery.
to my mind, it would not look "processed", but more natural, if you were to try it with colors as you saw them when you took the photo.
In most situations, the eyes/brain adapt to local color temperature and we don't see those wide deviations.
once the brain has adapted to a specific color temp, whether it be 3000 or 16,000 degrees K., there is no difference, it all looks the same to us, but not to a camera, whether b/w or color.
this is not the first time i see this excess blue in your photos, but now i tell you this so i can know if you did it on purpose.
this version does not have the "pop" of the former version, but it is much more representative of the way it looked to your eyes.
i would call this one Hi-Fi and very nice; the former version looked like the small prints they make in amateur photolabs.
i have nothing against personal taste in processing a photograph, but here, it looked like amateurish work, which is unusual from you.
have a super weekend.