ADVERTISEMENT
Comments
I'd say that you've learned an awful lot - I think this is lovely, and I'm struggling to suggest any improvements!
1//30 at 10mm should be fine, even without a tripod or image stabilisation. f/22 may not give optimum sharpness, and if you want longer shutter speeds to blur the water more, you will need a neutral density filter.
Are there any areas in which you have doubts or questions? I'd vote for this in the main gallery, definitely.
1//30 at 10mm should be fine, even without a tripod or image stabilisation. f/22 may not give optimum sharpness, and if you want longer shutter speeds to blur the water more, you will need a neutral density filter.
Are there any areas in which you have doubts or questions? I'd vote for this in the main gallery, definitely.
It's a good landscape shot, some dramatic foreground interest and plenty of depth.
Thank you for the original, I can appreciate how much work went into the main image. The original is underexposed and underwhelming so full marks for persevering.
Asjusting for the sloping trees is good too.
I used that image for my two mods.
I warmed the white balance as the start image was cooler in tone (Auto WB tends to produce his effect) but you may like it as it is.
I further lightened the trees in the distance though if you wanted to keep the blueness in the water you could just lighten and warm the trees as they do look more attractive that way.
I cloned out the stick in the left corner as it is a distraction - I guess it was dangerous to physically remove it so software is your friend here.
My second mod avoids the issue as it's just a simple crop - an alternative, concentrating on the gushing water.
I'm siure f/16 or even f/13 would still have given sufficient depth of field at that focal length and been closer to the optimal performance of the lens. Unless you were after the slowest shutter speed you could obtain, though as John says a neutral density filter is very useful for that.
Thank you for the original, I can appreciate how much work went into the main image. The original is underexposed and underwhelming so full marks for persevering.
Asjusting for the sloping trees is good too.
I used that image for my two mods.
I warmed the white balance as the start image was cooler in tone (Auto WB tends to produce his effect) but you may like it as it is.
I further lightened the trees in the distance though if you wanted to keep the blueness in the water you could just lighten and warm the trees as they do look more attractive that way.
I cloned out the stick in the left corner as it is a distraction - I guess it was dangerous to physically remove it so software is your friend here.
My second mod avoids the issue as it's just a simple crop - an alternative, concentrating on the gushing water.
I'm siure f/16 or even f/13 would still have given sufficient depth of field at that focal length and been closer to the optimal performance of the lens. Unless you were after the slowest shutter speed you could obtain, though as John says a neutral density filter is very useful for that.
This is a lovely place for a few images.
I do like the way you have captured the rush of the water and generally your processing looks ok from the original.
I am not convinced that the stick on the LHS is contributing to the image so in my mod, I removed it...artistic licence
F22 can sometimes work against you as John has pointed out above.You could afford to drop your F stop and increase your shutter speed here. An ND filter would work well, the alternative would be 2 exposures, one for the sky and one for the water, combined whilst editing.
Some of the water highlights are blown, I did reduce them as much as I could in the Camera Raw filter along with a teeny bit of cloning set to darken on a separate layer.
You are always going to get some distortion with that lens at 10mm, I took the correction a little further in my modification using the transform tool which resulted in a bit of a crop.
I also lightened the sky, just a little bit to try and match the water a little better.
Removed a few dust bunnies in the sky, only visible in photoshop on a larger view.
I also removed the ball of interfering light on the trees to the right.
Warmed the whole thing up a fraction, again using the Camera Raw filter.
Just watch the slight lighter halos sneaking in where the sky meets those distant mountains, probably down to sharpening but nothing really drastic.
You have really put advice into practise here, very well done, I can see such an improvement in your processing.
I would say that this frame was well worth processing, well done !
I do like the way you have captured the rush of the water and generally your processing looks ok from the original.
I am not convinced that the stick on the LHS is contributing to the image so in my mod, I removed it...artistic licence
F22 can sometimes work against you as John has pointed out above.You could afford to drop your F stop and increase your shutter speed here. An ND filter would work well, the alternative would be 2 exposures, one for the sky and one for the water, combined whilst editing.
Some of the water highlights are blown, I did reduce them as much as I could in the Camera Raw filter along with a teeny bit of cloning set to darken on a separate layer.
You are always going to get some distortion with that lens at 10mm, I took the correction a little further in my modification using the transform tool which resulted in a bit of a crop.
I also lightened the sky, just a little bit to try and match the water a little better.
Removed a few dust bunnies in the sky, only visible in photoshop on a larger view.
I also removed the ball of interfering light on the trees to the right.
Warmed the whole thing up a fraction, again using the Camera Raw filter.
Just watch the slight lighter halos sneaking in where the sky meets those distant mountains, probably down to sharpening but nothing really drastic.
You have really put advice into practise here, very well done, I can see such an improvement in your processing.
I would say that this frame was well worth processing, well done !
That is high praise indeed. Thank you. I love the different viewpoints from each person that provides feedback/critique. It gives me ideas for how else to process an image or teaches me to look closer for the flaws. (Straightening the trees) It is only through the feedback that I’ll improve or know when I am doing something right.
IF you were to do this again, - visit Alberta that is.
Dont use f/22 - use nothing smaller than f/11, - youve lost lots of sharpness.
Dont stick with Auto WB in post processing, use Daylight, - this is way too blue.
Dont overdo the processing, - it is dramatic, and to some extent you have to push it as the initial shot needs a lot of help, just not so much.
Ive added a mod with daylight WB, way too much sharpening, lifted saturation.
Regards
Willie
Dont use f/22 - use nothing smaller than f/11, - youve lost lots of sharpness.
Dont stick with Auto WB in post processing, use Daylight, - this is way too blue.
Dont overdo the processing, - it is dramatic, and to some extent you have to push it as the initial shot needs a lot of help, just not so much.
Ive added a mod with daylight WB, way too much sharpening, lifted saturation.
Regards
Willie
I'm late here, I'll echo the above. And I'll just add one comment, which is regarding my own personal obsession, composition / format.
I find the edges of the frame, left and right, distracting. That branch on the left, the bit of rock intruding on the right. The thing about landscape format is that it leads the eye horizontally, from left to right across the frame, so from one intrusion to another. Whereas here my eye wants to travel up and down with the flow of the water.
Portrait format encourages that, hence my cropped mod. (I worked from your upload, no other processing). If you return I would suggest rotating the camera - try it out!.
By chance, there's an example of how this can work here. It appeared very close to your upload in the main gallery. There's no Exif displayed, but it shows how wide angle can work from a low viewpoint in a portrait frame.
Moira
I find the edges of the frame, left and right, distracting. That branch on the left, the bit of rock intruding on the right. The thing about landscape format is that it leads the eye horizontally, from left to right across the frame, so from one intrusion to another. Whereas here my eye wants to travel up and down with the flow of the water.
Portrait format encourages that, hence my cropped mod. (I worked from your upload, no other processing). If you return I would suggest rotating the camera - try it out!.
By chance, there's an example of how this can work here. It appeared very close to your upload in the main gallery. There's no Exif displayed, but it shows how wide angle can work from a low viewpoint in a portrait frame.
Moira
Thank you again. I was going to enter the image as travel for some exhibitions so I tried to avoid cloning but will try to remember to remove it if I enter it in colour. Love the idea of a vertical crop. One of the judges in our club hates the thought of a landscape image being cropped as portrait so have unintentionally been brainwashed.😂😂
Thanks for the feedback, it helps us if we know that we are working in the right direction.
Beware of club judges, they speak with forked tongues...
Beware of club judges, they speak with forked tongues...
This is already a nice image. That branch on the left ... it's got to go. I might have cropped a little of that foreground out and added the same amount to the sky ... I find the trees a little close to the edge of the frame personally. But it is still a good image even as it stands.
