falls, mull

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thoughts?

Jeremy

[francois]

I like it. The moderately long exposure works for me and the foreground rocks take this photo to another level, above a simple, well executed snapshot.

[sdwilsonsct]

Is there any structure hidden in the white water? I would be curious to try just a little more definition.

[Mikey-N]

Very nice Photo!, Just enough long exposure to show the movement and iron out the water ripples but maybe a touch too much for my liking in the white water, as said above maybe a little more definition would help cracking photo though none the less!

[stamper]

Over saturated and the water is over exposed. Can you re process it or better still re visit the scene when the light isn't as harsh?

[Jeremy Roussak]

The saturation is as nature provided and I have to say that I don't recall the light, at 1745 on a generally cloudy day, being harsh. I suspect it will be a while before I revisit the place, beautiful though it is: Mull is a hell of a drive from Manchester.

There is more detail to be had in the white water, though.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Now it gets my stamp of approval. Much better.

[RSL]

 +1. My only question is whether or not there really was that much red in the scene.

[Jeremy Roussak]

+1. My only question is whether or not there really was that much red in the scene.

Thanks, Russ. Yes, pretty much. I did move the temperature slider a couple of hundred degrees up from "as shot" to give some warmth.

Jeremy

[stamper]

The saturation is as nature provided and I have to say that I don't recall the light, at 1745 on a generally cloudy day, being harsh. I suspect it will be a while before I revisit the place, beautiful though it is: Mull is a hell of a drive from Manchester.

There is more detail to be had in the white water, though.

Jeremy

Thanks, Russ. Yes, pretty much. I did move the temperature slider a couple of hundred degrees up from "as shot" to give some warmth.

Jeremy

A contradiction?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thanks, Russ. Yes, pretty much. I did move the temperature slider a couple of hundred degrees up from "as shot" to give some warmth.

Jeremy

A contradiction?

No, no contradiction. I don't regard a slight correction to white balance as increasing saturation.

I'm pleased you have edited out the false accusation, present in your original post1, that I changed my original image, although I've really no idea why you made it in the first place.

Jeremy

1 I received a copy of your original post by email. Perhaps you should think more carefully before pressing "Post".

[stamper]

No accusation Jeremy but I was wondering about the possibility. I looked at the images in two tabs and there wasn't subsequently any difference hence the fact of the change of mind. Regarding the "slight correction" in white balance then a couple of hundred degrees will- imo - make more than a "slight correction" I use LR and I tried it on an image and the change in colour cast was noticeable.  

BTW

1 I received a copy of your original post by email. Perhaps you should think more carefully before pressing "Post".

No harm done because I don't think anyone else had much of a chance to see it. Regarding pressing "Post" the statement about two hundred degrees may have you thinking about pressing "Post" 

[Jeremy Roussak]

No accusation Jeremy but I was wondering about the possibility. I looked at the images in two tabs and there wasn't subsequently any difference hence the fact of the change of mind.

It seemed accusatory, but I'm happy to accept your assurance that it wasn't. You can tell whether posts here have been edited (after a short while from initial post, anyway); and the first post here hasn't been.

Regarding the "slight correction" in white balance then a couple of hundred degrees will- imo - make more than a "slight correction" I use LR and I tried it on an image and the change in colour cast was noticeable.  

Colour cast, perhaps noticeable but not marked; overall saturation, I think not.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Perhaps the issue here relates to a problem I've had fairly often. I can't seem to find any good way to calibrate my eyeballs, and when I look at a screen image one day it may well look somewhat different from the way it looked the day before.

I keep my monitors and printer pretty well calibrated, but I can't seem to find a device for making quality ICC profiles for my eyes. 

[degrub]

Cod liver oil ? 

Frank

[Jeremy Roussak]

Cod liver oil ? 

Carrots.

Jeremy

[Riaan van Wyk]

Hi Jeremy, nice scene, wish you had included a bit more of the foreground ( if there was) for added interest though. It must have been pleasant to spend some time at such a tranquil place.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Carrots.

Jeremy

So, just out of curiosity I Googled "ICC Carrots" and got approximately 203,000 hits (including several for various International Carrot Conferences), while Bing only gave me 43,200 hits (including Carrot Fennel Soup). Didn't see any on the first couple of pages that would offer to make ICC profiles for me.  So sad. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

So, just out of curiosity I Googled "ICC Carrots" and got approximately 203,000 hits (including several for various International Carrot Conferences), while Bing only gave me 43,200 hits (including Carrot Fennel Soup). Didn't see any on the first couple of pages that would offer to make ICC profiles for me.  So sad. 

The sad thing is that you give up so easily. Two pages? Pah!

I bet people behave themselves at the International Carrot Conferences. No canoodling in the dark, as everyone will be able to see you.

Anyway, we all know you get the best ICC profiles if you make them yourself (or in my case get Rhossydd to do it for me).

It does perhaps say something about the relative powers of Google and Bing, though.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Does Rhossydd make International Carrot Conference profiles for defective eyeballs?