another one I'm on the fence about. More waterflow, rocks, and greens.

Ernicus · Jul 24, 2012

I think I like this one better than the last one.

Thoughts? comments? ways to improve?

laynea24 · Jul 24, 2012

I like this one better than the other. It seems to flow better. Not the water, the photo. Did you use an ND filter for this?

Ernicus · Jul 24, 2012

Me too.

Nope, no filter, naked nifty fifty. Lighting was just right by the time I hit this area. I'm struggling with another shot now from about an hour prior to this one...lighting a bit harsh.

laynea24 · Jul 25, 2012

Ernicus said:
Me too.

Nope, no filter, naked nifty fifty. Lighting was just right by the time I hit this area. I'm struggling with another shot now from about an hour prior to this one...lighting a bit harsh.

An ND filter would help with the harsh lighting. I'm looking at buying a Hoya ND400 to accomplish photos like this. It brings you down 9 stops!

raygunboost · Jul 25, 2012

I think it looks nicely shot good job! Got to love those amazing textures. Also loving the water :thumbup:

Ernicus · Jul 25, 2012

Yeah, I didin't have a nd for this lens and left my rings at home, I could have used it about an hour or so prior but I just waited for the sun to cooperate instead.

laynea24 · Jul 25, 2012

Ernicus said:
Yeah, I didin't have a nd for this lens and left my rings at home, I could have used it about an hour or so prior but I just waited for the sun to cooperate instead.

Must be nice to have an hour to kill! It paid off.

Ernicus · Jul 25, 2012

I think we were there for about 4 hours. lol. The hour killed was shooting the other fall, which did not come out as nice as this one.

Derrel · Jul 25, 2012

This image, and other recent ones you have posted, appear over-sharpened on the foliage backgrounds. The high-frequency detail areas are just not looking right on the web. That might also be a re-sizing algorithm problem/issue with the forum software.

Ernicus · Jul 25, 2012

Derrel said:
This image, and other recent ones you have posted, appear over-sharpened on the foliage backgrounds. The high-frequency detail areas are just not looking right on the web. That might also be a re-sizing algorithm problem/issue with the forum software.

Could very well be, as they look in photoshop, it's not as bad. I printed two, not as bad. So I'm guessing web kill. However, I think I could have toned it down a tad as well after seeing them with new eyes a day or two later.

I may revisit my favorites raw files and try again. These were some of the few that when I opened I went to do my usual corrections and just kinda paused...'cause there was nothing to correct. I actually nailed exposure and focus. lol. So I played around a bit and that sort. I'll probly do one as a test, not run the highpass on it, print it and see how it is compared to the others.

Ernicus · Jul 25, 2012

Derell,

I just did this one real quick. Raw conversion and a tad highlight/shadow adjust for bringing out some shadow detail in the back.

What's verdict on this vs. the other? Meet in the middle, leave it alone? What do your eyes see?

Ernicus · Jul 25, 2012

when I set it up side by side at 100% and click back and forth, the first one up top still looks better. I think there may be a slight bit too much contrast actually when flipping back n forth, but not over sharpening. One of the drawbacks of uploading things I guess...doesn't always look the same as on pc. I'll just print and rely on the truth in print vs posted images.

Thanks for pointing things out though so I'd take a second look.

laynea24 · Jul 25, 2012

Wow- I would love to be able to go out and shoot for 4 hours!

Derrel · Jul 26, 2012

I think the second version looks a bit better on the web. "web kill"--I like that phrase! Good one! It's so hard to preserve the beauty of delicate landscapes on a web site where the "big" pictures that are allowed are so doggone small. Maybe some day when more than a handful of people have cable internet, and 500- to 800-megahertz processors in PC's become common, TPF will allow images say, 3/4 as big as Flickr allows. What? Some people ALREADY have cable internet AND 500-megahertz PC's??? Whaaaaat???? Whoa! Surely you mean the Rockefellers, right? CABLE internet??? Oh, come on!