Ashness Bridge

[ST1]

I had a trip back in time this evening (maybe something to do with the latest Dr Who series on the gogglebox ) The trip took me to October 2010. The purpose of the time travel was to see how an old image would stand up to my current work flow.

Your comments and or critique would be welcome.

[Shadowman]

Very colorful, like an illustration.

[bnnrcn]

+1 to John's comment. IMO it is a bit oversharpened though.

[Mark von Kanel]

Yes maybe a little sharp but on the whole i feel it holds up really well, love the composition.

[IzzieK]

Me too...I am with Mark here. The composition holds on its own -- I particularly prefer one will lesser water and the emphasis on the bridge a little bit more since that is your title...

[John 2]

Classic viewpoint and a nice capture. Perhaps a tad more towards the black in levels for me.

[Stagecoach]

That's quite a pretty scene Peter and well composed.

It almost has a 'painting' look to it which I'm wondering if caused by the sharpening or that it was taken on an older camera. I would be interested to see the original before any PP.

I certainly like the subtle tones in it giving it a certain delicacy.

Grahame

[ST1]

That's quite a pretty scene Peter and well composed.

It almost has a 'painting' look to it which I'm wondering if caused by the sharpening or that it was taken on an older camera. I would be interested to see the original before any PP.

I certainly like the subtle tones in it giving it a certain delicacy.

Grahame

Grahame, your wish is my command

#2 This is the camera produced jpg, resized for posting only. I suspect that f22 wasn't a good choice and may have contributed to the painting look. With the original image I posted (for clarity it shall now be known as #2) I added an LCE layer which with hindsight plus Binnurs sharp eyes I now believe to have been too strong.

_MG_8953-Web-Edit-original.jpg by The Original ST, on Flickr

#3 This is my rework of the #1 image which hopefully isn't over sharpened, I may be wrong on this so hopefully Binnur will let me know?

_MG_8953-Web-Edit-CiC-SH50-Edit.jpg by The Original ST, on Flickr

[ST1]

Classic viewpoint and a nice capture. Perhaps a tad more towards the black in levels for me.

John thanks for taking time to look and comment, how does my second edit (see post #8 above) stack up wrt Blacks

[ST1]

Me too...I am with Mark here. The composition holds on its own -- I particularly prefer one will lesser water and the emphasis on the bridge a little bit more since that is your title...

Izzie
Just for you I have once again travelled back in time to October 2010 these image are from the same day and for clarity shall have to be known as "#4" and "#5" in this thread.

#4 showing a little more of Ashness Bridge which isn't a very big bridge as Packhorse bridges go.

_MG_8961-Web-Edit-2.jpg by The Original ST, on Flickr

#5 The same bridge but from downstream, with a rather drab sky. I had to remove an errant photographer from this image, he never felt a thing honest.

_MG_8956-web-Edit-3-Cic.jpg by The Original ST, on Flickr

[John 2]

No. 2 looks right to me now. No. 3 looks slightly OTT but I do like the fact that the wetness in the rock is more pronounced. 4 and 5 are on the money.

[ST1]

+1 to John's comment. IMO it is a bit oversharpened though.

Thank you Binnur I'm glad you spot my sharpening errors I appreciate you taking time to look and critique my image. I need to keep practising my processing (or maybe get some new spectacles). I have added a rework of the original image at post #8 above, hopefully this one isn't too sharp?
Thanks again.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for posting the original un-worked Jpeg.

A few comments,

On the un-worked Jpeg (I hear everyone saying it gets worked in camera you have posted I can clearly see artifact halos around certain edges, large rock centre of river on its right edge (white water behind) and bottom right corner grass stalk that looks like a fishing rod and line. These edge halo artifacts are very noticeable if the brightness is dropped slightly. If this image has not been worked it may suggest that your camera jpeg sharpness settings are a bit high?

I'm not aware if you work in jpeg or RAW but again taking image 5, these halo artifacts are clearly evident along the top of the bridge and in No 4 along the left hand edges of the mountains possibly due excessive sharpening.

I'm not sure of the affect of closed down aperture other than diffraction but have not noted any concerns on recent images I have taken at f/22 but every lens and camera is going to give different results.

The other thing of course is personal taste and whilst I have attempted to keep scenes with foliage and so much detail not so harsh that of course is not everyone's taste.

Will be interesting to hear other comments from the landscape aficionados.

PS. Forgot to mention, the latest postings are yet more beautiful compositions.

Grahame

[ST1]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for posting the original un-worked Jpeg.

A few comments,

On the un-worked Jpeg (I hear everyone saying it gets worked in camera you have posted I can clearly see artifact halos around certain edges, large rock centre of river on its right edge (white water behind) and bottom right corner grass stalk that looks like a fishing rod and line. These edge halo artifacts are very noticeable if the brightness is dropped slightly. If this image has not been worked it may suggest that your camera jpeg sharpness settings are a bit high?

I'm not aware if you work in jpeg or RAW but again taking image 5, these halo artifacts are clearly evident along the top of the bridge and in No 4 along the left hand edges of the mountains possibly due excessive sharpening.

I'm not sure of the affect of closed down aperture other than diffraction but have not noted any concerns on recent images I have taken at f/22 but every lens and camera is going to give different results.

The other thing of course is personal taste and whilst I have attempted to keep scenes with foliage and so much detail not so harsh that of course is not everyone's taste.

Will be interesting to hear other comments from the landscape aficionados.

PS. Forgot to mention, the latest postings are yet more beautiful compositions.

Grahame

Grahame thanks so much for looking at the images and supplying me with great feedback. I now wondering what if any impact my use of Flickr to host and link to for these images is having on the images. I just wonder if that hosting site is adding some sharpening. Like you I will be interested in comments from others here both on the images and any thoughts they have wrt using flickr. Thanks again Grahame

[ST1]

No. 2 looks right to me now. No. 3 looks slightly OTT but I do like the fact that the wetness in the rock is more pronounced. 4 and 5 are on the money.

Thanks for taking time to comment John, glad you liked four and five, sometimes it's good to revisit previous work.

[NorthernFocus]

What a lovely location, particularly that time of year. The contrast of the fall colors and grey stone makes for a nice scene. I tend to agree with Izzie in the first version in that the water provides a lot of dead space in the foreground. Plus the tangled branches at right aren't very attractive. However the concept is excellent with the stream flowing towards the lake in the distance.

The lichen covered rocks in no.5 are interesting. Yes you had a difficult sky though a sunny day would also have been a challenge.

Looks like a lovely location and a compositional challenge.

[moopy goops]

I'm kinda out of my depth here, I can offer no evidence and I have a fairly limited knowledge of algorithms etc but I am pretty sure I've read that flickr does indeed 'self sharpen' and that this can sometimes be quite harsh. Presumably you have at least 1 version of one of these shots that hasn't been through the flickr pipeline as it were. It might be a useful comparison ?
As for your beautiful shots I personally think the scene is better with more water foreground (don't want to cross swords with Izzie) and I like the one with slightly less sharpening (No3) more. I also really like the downstream version (No5) but it does suffer from a totally uninteresting sky (though you could quite easily change that).
All in all a super location and a beautiful scene. Thank you

[Wavelength]

very colorful...very lovely...

[IzzieK]

As for your beautiful shots I personally think the scene is better with more water foreground (don't want to cross swords with Izzie)

Hey Mat...I do not mind other opinions adverse to mine...Your seeing eyes are different from mine and of course you are free to look and form your own opinion...do it with smiley next time, OK? so it doesn't sound so harsh...

[IzzieK]

Peter, although I am referring to the very first photo in this post, uploading the other ones is really very, very nice of you. Thank you. I love them both -- especially #5 because of the rocks with more lichens in them are really very attractive though I must opine that the front two rocks suffers the same nit I have in Shot #1 (the first shot...)

Amuse me -- either crop down to where you see the distraction on the lower corner of the shot or clone this one out so you can have both world of selection between Mat and my way of thinking, less foreground for me or clone it out for more water for Mat...

In #5 which I like very much, I prefer just to show a little bit of the second rock at the bottom to put more emphasis on the water and the bridge. Sometimes a little bit can be too much so the ball is in your court now...

I am just li'l ol' me offering some suggestions here. I am no expert either but IF these shots are mine, that's what I'd do. No need to stress about it...they are all beautiful and little bit over sharpened and the good news? -- they are not mine. The bad news, you got critiqued.