Pick your favorite of the two. CC also welcomed.

[PropilotBW]

Finally getting around to posting some pics I took a couple weeks ago.

This is Sioux Falls, SD at sunset.

1). The Falls.

2). The Falls with Train.

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh wow, no contest really. #3. Definitely #3. Hands down.

Lol.

Ok, seriously though, I like the composition in 2 better - but I'd probably have to go with #1 anyway, and this might just be me but #2 seems like it's tilted just slightly to the left.

 

[Tarayn]

I like #1 more because it seems like the waterfall is more the focus of the picture.

 

[Designer]

#1

 

[Braineack]

#2. the train is fun.

but the exposure wasnt quite loing enough on this one.

sky is boring in both, really need to go back out with a density filter of sorts.

both seem low in the frame, id tilt the camera up just a bit.

 

[Rudipides]

#1. The blur of the train in #2 throws me off a bit.

 

[TCampbell]

Certainly #1.

#2 has a bit of tension as I'm not entirely certain where I'm supposed to be looking... the "main" falls going left, that minor outcrop and flow on the right... that blurred train along the top. #2 is a bit confusing as it doesn't focus on one thing.

 

[IzzieK]

Love #1...it is warmer by far...

 

[astroNikon]

Prefer # 1 - you can see the Falls better. a little brighter too.

I know in # 2 you added the small fall to the right. That train doesn't fit ....

wish the sky was clearer .. but then, I just took long exposure shots of a water fountain in the rain. The sky was grey and the shots don't look so hot with white water and a grey cloudy sky.

 

[PropilotBW]

#2. the train is fun.

but the exposure wasnt quite loing enough on this one.

sky is boring in both, really need to go back out with a density filter of sorts.

both seem low in the frame, id tilt the camera up just a bit.

I agree the sky is blown out. I tried to salvage it as best as I could. I only had a 3 stop ND at the time.

 

[PropilotBW]

Oh wow, no contest really. #3. Definitely #3. Hands down.

Lol.

Ok, seriously though, I like the composition in 2 better - but I'd probably have to go with #1 anyway, and this might just be me but #2 seems like it's tilted just slightly to the left.

#3).

.

 

[D-B-J]

For me, number one was the better image, solely on composition. The falls were more of the focal point. I took it into lightroom, did some contrast/clarity/boomify-ing of it, then brought it into Silver Efex Pro 2 and made the B+W conversion, added a selenium color finish, and here it is. Had I had the original the banding may not have been in the sky, but you get the idea.



My two main issues with the original are the blown sky and the blown highlights on the falls itself. Falls are really tough to shoot--the water can be stops and stops above the rocks/hard structure, which really makes photographing them tricky. A GND filter or a HDR setup might have made this image much better technically, but that's just me.


Jake

 

[astroNikon]

oooohhh ... # 3 # 3


though the raised road/train tracks in the back ... clone that out.

 

[astroNikon]

#2. the train is fun.

but the exposure wasnt quite loing enough on this one.

sky is boring in both, really need to go back out with a density filter of sorts.

both seem low in the frame, id tilt the camera up just a bit.

I agree the sky is blown out. I tried to salvage it as best as I could. I only had a 3 stop ND at the time.

Underexpose, per say, to get the sky.
The use Shadow feature in LightRoom (or something else) to bring out the details of the waterfall ... that might work depending how underexposed the waterfall is. I guess could merge two shots too .. one for the sky the 2nd for falls .. but I have no idea how to do that.

 

[D-B-J]

#2. the train is fun.

but the exposure wasnt quite loing enough on this one.

sky is boring in both, really need to go back out with a density filter of sorts.

both seem low in the frame, id tilt the camera up just a bit.

I agree the sky is blown out. I tried to salvage it as best as I could. I only had a 3 stop ND at the time.

Underexpose, per say, to get the sky.
The use Shadow feature in LightRoom (or something else) to bring out the details of the waterfall ... that might work depending how underexposed the waterfall is. I guess could merge two shots too .. one for the sky the 2nd for falls .. but I have no idea how to do that.

It'd be easier to take separate exposures, overlay in Photoshop, then erase what you don't want from each. So then you'd have a layer for the sky, a layer for all the watery bits, and a layer for the shadows/rocks/hardscape. Granted, it'd be a bunch of work, but that's how I'd do it. Or use a HDR program like Photomatix Pro to do the work and such for you. It works well, but I typically take all the source images and the photomatix HDR into PS and do some retouching--HDR software tends to leave you with highlight lines and such.

Jake

Jake