PP feedback required

[annie5154]

Hi all

I would appreciate if I could have some constructive comments about the post processing of this image. I have started to do a bit more in CS5 than I was few weeks ago and that is down to the feedback I received on here.
I will post the original image too.
Thanks again.
Anne

[annie5154]

Original image

[MrB]

Anne, I hope that you like the way you have processed this image because, if you do, I can conclude that you must see in a similar way as I see - in daylight the natural world is colourful, even on no sun days in winter. So I prefer to see that portrayed in colour photos, as you have done with this image.

Philip

[annie5154]

Thank you Philip. I just wonder if I could have made the original look a bit more colourful as I took it.

[MrB]

Thank you Philip. I just wonder if I could have made the original look a bit more colourful as I took it.

In your camera you should have a menu in which you can preset the overall appearance of your image.

I do not have a Canon but your choices might be similar to these - normal, bright, natural, portrait, landscape, vibrant, muted, slide film, and monochrome. Each of those can be adjusted for brightness, contrast, saturation, hue and sharpness. The choices made are applied when the photo is shot, so they influence the appearance of the Jpeg image straight from the camera. Alternatively, if shot in Raw, the parameters are saved in the Raw data file for use (or not) in image post processing.

So have a look in your camera's menus for something similar.

Philip

[annie5154]

Thank you Philip ... something else learned, will now go away and practice.

[Geoff F]

Shooting Raw, Annie, certainly gives you more editing options as you are starting with a 'blank sheet' so you don't have to begin by trying to undo some auto camera settings.

In fact on the rare occasions when I shoot jpeg, I set the camera 'enhancements' to zero.

Looking at this image, I feel the basic editing is fine but the composition seems just a little confused to me. My first thought is to crop a little bit from the bottom. Maybe somewhere about where that projecting rock almost crosses the stream.

I feel that would concentrate the view more upon the middle mini waterfall. There should be sufficient space to take a corresponding amount from the sides if you want to retain the same width to height ratio.

Alternatively, cropping a little from both top and bottom might be worth trying. I suspect this may be one of those cases of trying a few options then making a final decision. Either way, try to end up with a scene where it becomes easy to look at the 'main action' without too much distraction.

[annie5154]

Thanks for your comments Geoff they are really appreciated. I will try your suggestion and see how it works.

[annie5154]

Hi Geoff, After thinking about what was said in relation to the composition of this shot, instead of editing again I thought I would just post the one I took in landscape format. I knew there was something not quite right but not sure what it was until your feedback.

Is this any better?

[Ryogenetic]

Anne I think you nailed it on that last edit, great shot.

Ryo

[annie5154]

Thank you Ryo I appreciate your comment.

[Geoff F]

Yes, that works well now. You have added to the foreground but my also reducing the rear elements which were just causing confusion my eyes now flow directly along the stream to the 'mini rapids'.

An excellent composition now.

[RockNGoalStar]

Hi Geoff, After thinking about what was said in relation to the composition of this shot, instead of editing again I thought I would just post the one I took in landscape format. I knew there was something not quite right but not sure what it was until your feedback.

Is this any better?

I really like this Anne. I love the composition and the lighting, and I think you've nailed the processing! Great job!

[pat brennan]

I really like this Anne. I love the composition and the lighting, and I think you've nailed the processing! Great job!

hi Anne i have to agree that this is by far the better image all round

[annie5154]

Thank you everyone for your very welcome comments. I have now learned something else.

Till the next time. Anne

[rhadorn]

I like that picture. I myself aim at rendering the unconspicuous in bare winter landscapes. I am also fond of revealing colors where I saw none, some time ago.

The palette is excellent, the relationship between warm and cool colors also. If I think of a mid sized print of that photo (which it would deserve), I would probably take the saturation back a bit. If you want to capture the attention of people on a web gallery where people browse through like the wind, saturation is a means to get it. If you want to enjoy looking at the picture for a while, it may be more rewarding to look a bit more for details and color variations, as you did yourself while taking the picture.

To be frank, I find it often difficult to nail the appropriate saturation of colours. It is a matter of taste, of style, of mood... so it is actually your choice!

[Rob Douglas]

Great work on the PP and composition on the final edit Anne. This image is tack sharp and the Ballance of color and saturation is perfect along with the lighting. Nice smooth water effect and your composition now frames the subject perfectly. This one is IMO wall worthy. Great job.

[Muizen]

I know that I am going to take a risk, but my question really is whether the scenery you shot looked more like the original image than like the post processed one?
Didn't the post processing create a nice looking image that now no longer represents the original scenery?
Somewhat like the fashion shots that we see nowadays?
For my eye it is no longer natural?

[Geoff F]

It is mostly a matter of personal choice I think, Harry.

For example, I don't like excessive HDR images but when done 'sympathetically', so it just adds a little to the tonal range, I'm happy.

And I really don't like those very long exposures of surf or waterfalls/river shots; but they are popular with many photographers.

Personal taste is part of artistic interpretation and, unless the photos are used as evidence in a court of law, it is surely down to the photographer to make a pleasing image that suits themselves.

In many ways, a lot of photographers are simply artists who lack the ability to paint with brushes. And who is going to complain that Van Gogh, for instance, produced paintings which didn't exactly resemble the original articles.

There is certainly an argument that some 'fashion shots' create an unreal idealised view that all women (or men) must be absolutely perfect in every way. Which could mean that anybody who is unable to achieve those excessive ideas of beauty is a failure.

But in the real world, which is inhabited by logical people, most of us take a more pragmatic view of what is desirable and achievable.

However, let's not get too concerned about this.

[Muizen]

Geoff: Thank you for your to the point answer. It's indeed a personal matter of taste. I personally don't like to "boost" in pp images beyond the reality which I saw when I shot the photograph.
But it certainly is up to everybody to develop an image to one's liking!
Harry