Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: SkipMartin on March 02, 2007, 08:08:31 pm
-
Hey all, and thanks for any comments you might leave.
I've been obsessive about photography for a few years and it struck me this morning to actually look around on the internet for things that could help me learn. Seem like a forum is a great place if some of you would share your wisdom with me. Read some of the other posts and critiques and I've got a LOT to learn about Photoshop and a lot of new words that I need to figure out what they mean (tonal range?!).
Anyway, I humbly submit this image for your critiques (if I can figure out how to). Not one of my best, or even my favorite, but one that doesn't really sgrab me and I'm not sure why. Maybe I've just seen it too much.
Canon 30D, 17-40mm at 17mm, iso 100, F16, 2sec, polarizer
thanks,
-Skip
-
The water is very well done. What makes this image less than ideal, in my opinion, is all the noise in the form of branches and brush that are between the viewer and the subject.
Apply the same water techniques from a better vantage point, and you have a winner.
-
I agree with Fike, this might be a location where you have to get your feet wet to get the right vantage.
-
Hey thanks guys. Went and looked at the pics for that day and found one that I like better. Did a quick WB adjustment on it. Better?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/skipmartin/RichlandCreek_0361.jpg)
As for brush in the way, brush in Arkansas iis kinda like mosquitos in Alaska. Both are real hazards to Photographers.
This shot was the only angle that I could get with both water falls in it without a bunch of brush in the foreground. And I am normaly not scared to get my feet wet, but it was really cold that day and I was about 3 miles in and was visiting family so I didn't have my waders or rubber boots and... that's all the excuses I have.
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/skipmartin/RichlandCreek_0346.jpg)
And sorry for the low resolution, I'm working the kinks out and trying to figure the best size for these things to be.
-Skip
-
Compositionally the second above isn't too bad, but as you indicate there are some technical issues to overcome in getting the right sharpness and contrast - that's in the capture/processing, for web disply you've got way way too much jpg compression happening, try level 5 or 6 at 800x600.
For the first, you need to think about all the major elements in the composition - in this case think about what you want from the foreground. If it's not adding something worthwhile, crop it out. There's no rule that says the final version needs to be the same aspect ratio as shot.
-
Hey Skip, what is a boy from the far north doing taking a photo in my back yard? Looks like you got the water running at about the best level for this waterfall. You say you did a white balance - I'm wondering what you used to do this as the color of the water is terrible in all of your shots. The best and most accurate way to do this is in your RAW* converter - simply use the white balance tool (eye dropper) and click on any part of the moving water and it will instantly balance the entire scene and your water will be white, the way it should be. I know a lot of folks like blue water, but that is probably a throwback to the old days of film when it was tough to use the correct warming filter to get the water totally neutral (the blue cast coming from being in shade and lit by a blue sky above, or taken early in the day or late in the evening). Water should be white, not blue or purple.
*Now that we can open jpgs and tiffs in the new Camera Raw 4 (CS3) you can also use the white balance tool with other than RAW images - simply open the jpg or tiff as a RAW file in ACR4 and do the same one-click to bring the color back in line - doesn't work as well as going direct from the RAW file (since some of those white pixels may already be close to clipping), but it is one way to rescue images that are already processed...
Tim Ernst in Arkansas
http://www.Cloudland.net (http://www.Cloudland.net)
-
Tim Gray,
Thanks for the resolution advice. Saved me a bit of time on this slow cranky old computer. Worked well, see the new shot below.
Tim Ernst,
It is not so strange that I've got pictures of your backyard. I'd be a 5th generation Ozark Hillbilly if I lived around there. I think I'm related to about half the people in Boone County. My mom lives in Harrison, one brother has a house in Gilbert that back up to the Buffalo River land and the other brother is at U if Arkansas.
I'm a big fan of your work, my family had your photobooks and guide books laying around the house when I was growing up. I knew who you were before I had ever heard of Ansel Adams. Got your latest calender within arm's reach as I'm sitting here looking out at snow covered spruce trees.
Love your backyard. Me and another redneck who grew up in Russleville are bragging about Arkasnas, and since we are both obsessive shutterbugs, people up here in Denali country are starting to see how great Arkansas really is. I'd move back there someday but I've got a serious adversion to ticks. I keep my visits limited to winter these days when the ground is frozen and I can't work.
Thanks for the advice. That is the sort of thing that I can't really figure out by myself. I've got the RAW editor that came my camera and a old copy of photoshop 6.0 that I bartered a friend for and I must say that after about a year of trying to teach myself, I've hit a wall.
Here is a new edit. Is this closer to what the water should look like?
(http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g44/skipmartin/RichlandCreek_0361-1.jpg)
Thanks for help!
-Skip
-
The new edit does it nicely for me. I didn't care for the blue water. This is much nicer.
-
Here is a new edit. Is this closer to what the water should look like?
-Skip
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The water is a much better colour now. Personally I am not a fan of the smooth water thing, but your latest image processing is I think a great improvement.
Julie
-
... Personally I am not a fan of the smooth water thing, ...
Julie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Julie,
Yeah, I know the time lapse waterfall picture can be a little cliched (my girlfriend HATES them), but they can make for some pretty pictures that really capture the mood of the place. I'm definately starting to see the cliches in some of my pictures, but I have a great time with my expensive hobby. It is an art that there is always room to grow and I feel like I learn something almost every time that I take the camera out. THat's why I'm excited to find this forum. In just four or five posts, you all have taught me some things that would have been hard for me to figure out by myself.
-SKip
-
It may have helped to wait for better light, which I realize might be all night. But anything for a good photo right?
-
Hey Skip - YES, that water and all the color looks much better! Glad to hear you've got Arkie blood in ya. Keep up the good work!
Tim Ernst in Arkansas