Waterfall take 2

[Rita]

The weather was better than they forecast for today so I was able to get back to the waterfall. Here are a couple for critique, comments, feedback...

By the way Mike, these are with a polarizer

1. A slightly different position than previous



2. My attempt to do what Colin did. Unfortunately my tripod legs don't do what his does but I got as low as I could

[GEORDIE]

Rita, you have two nice pics. there. I think you have got the shutter speed spot on.
Well done Colin.

[Mike Buckley]

You're definitely getting the hang of it. Much better composition in the first one!

However, you've still got blown details in the first one. Even if your post-processing software doesn't display them, your histogram displays the expectation of blown details. If you're not familiar with how to read a histogram, the CiC tutorials explain that very well.

I'm surprised about the use of the polarizer in the first one. Notice the glare in a lot of the leaves on the right side. Even so, it's not possible to eliminate all of the glare in all of the leaves and this might be a good example of that. If you rotated the polarizer until either most of the glare was eliminated or until the most important glare was eliminated, you did well.

[Rita]

Colin, thank you.

Thanks Mike. Just a question on the histogram as I am just recently starting to use it. I did go through the tutorial on here and it was very helpful. My question is, the histogram on my camera showed no clipping, the histogram when I worked on the raw image showed no clipping, when I was working on the file in elements 11 the histogram was very different so which one do I go by? This might sound like a silly question but I really don't know

[Shadowman]

Nice efforts.

[Mike Buckley]

Go by the histogram being displayed at the time, whether it's the camera's histogram or the various softwares' histograms. That's because you always have to keep your eye on the histogram as you make changes during post-processing. If your camera's histogram displayed no clipping, it's likely that you produced the blown highlights when you post-processed the image, as that's easy to do if you don't keep a careful eye on that.

By the way, in theory, at the moment you switch from working on the RAW file and load the file in Elements without making any changes, the histograms should be fundamentally identical.

[Rita]

John, thank you

Mike, thank you again this helps me. I will revisit the editing of the image just to see what I can do different.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Rita I like the composition in #1

[Rita]

Thank you Binnur.