Virgin Creek Falls, AK

[NorthernFocus]

Although there are hundred of lovely waterfalls in Alaska, few of them are easily accessible. Virgin Creek Falls near Girdwood is one of the ones that is. Every time we take our boat to Prince William Sound we pass within a couple of miles of this location but never make time to stop. So today we drove down, shot the falls, and hiked a couple of trails. There was too much water flowing in the creek but we were there so I took a few shots. Here are a couple of different perspectives on the location. Access is difficult so there aren't a lot of compositional choices.

Landscapes aren't my strong suite so any C/C is appreciated. As always best viewed in the light box.

Nikon D7100, Nikon 28mm f1.8G, CPL, 3 stop ND

1. f/11 @ 28 mm, 1s, ISO 125,


2. f/11 @ 28 mm, 0.6s, ISO 200

[FootLoose]

I think the compositions are OK, Dan; I prefer the 2nd one. But I think both are a bit overprocessed because the shadows in the background seem to have been burned out, which makes the images appear a bit two dimensional, particularly the first one.

[IzzieK]

I like both of them, Dan...the textures of the rocks and moss are amazing. Looks wet... Vote goes to #2.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the comments, Greg and Izzie.

Greg, the BG shadows were so light due to the heavy mist being thrown up by the heavy flow over the fall. I had to brush in contrast in that area. But I do agree it still doesn't look just right. Here's another version where I brushed in more contrast in the BG area. If you toggle between them in the light box you can see the difference.

Reworked version.



As first posted.

[Stagecoach]

Very nice scene Dan, I prefer the reworked version it's looking a bit more how we would expect to see it. I especially like the interaction of the slower water area between the fast.

[Mike Buckley]

Though both compositions are nice, I prefer the first one. I also prefer the revised post-processing.

[KimC]

What scenery you have! The imagery is beautiful; however my preference would be for the water to look more natural - in my non-professional opinion (esp with the first water fall).

[Brownbear]

Beautiful images. I prefer the 2nd (darker shadows version) for the wider view base of the falls and water.

[Shadowman]

Nicely shot.

[John 2]

1st one for me but the highlights are a bit blown. I would have preferred more detail in the water in these areas and it is there. Tell me off if you don't like others processing your work but bringing the highlights down gives you something like this:

[BrianA61]

Nice composition, however, as others have pointed out, it is a bit too contrasty and saturated. The revised version is much better with the reduced shadows, but could still use some work. Bring down saturation and highlights and reduce contrast slightly and you'll have a winner. My opinion - worth what you paid for it.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for all the feedback, folks. Gives me some things to think about and poke around with some more.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Dan , very nice compositions I find the composition better in #1 because there is a leading curve of water and the composition looks more energetic. I like your edit for #2. I think the foliage needs less sharpening in both images.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the feedback, Binnur. I like the overall composition better on the first one as well. But I don't like the bottom of the fall behind partially hidden by the rock face. I have to re-visit that spot when there is less water flowing for different opportunities.

[deetheturk]

Lovely images Dan, another got to do on my list well done bud!

David

[FlyingSquirrel]

I LOVE the comp on image #2, and prefer the rework. I agree with others as well about the processing- for me it's a little too much small-scale/local contrast and too sharp. Images like this have what I call "high frequency detail" and they are extremely easy to introduce too much contrast and sharpness, simply because of how many edges there are and how many changes from light to dark there are in close proximity.

It calls for specialized processing, generally just going easy on the clarity type of enhancements, and focusing more on the large-scale "curves" while being gentle on those, too. Then I recommend masking in localized sharpening only where it seems needed, usually just in areas that have less detail, such as flat/smooth rocks and logs. I'd agree it helps to recover the highlights a good amount, and bring up the shadows just a tad...your burning in by hand of the larger shadows works great to give depth and maintain a realistic look. Also, bring the saturation down a little bit, IMO. If you process with LR, be aware that increasing contrast in any way (contrast, curves, clarity, etc) also increases saturation, so you'll have to pull down the saturation to offset that when the contrast gets to a certain point (unless you like the higher saturation). That's why, when using photoshop for curves, I set the curves adjustment layer to the "luminosity" blending mode, which applies the curves in such a way that it only lightens/darkens the pixels/tones, while not increasing the contrast as it otherwise would. Another thing to consider with longer exposure water shots such as this, is to shoot a frame with less exposure so there is some detail in the water, then in photoshop just mask the detail of the water in over the main exposure (it can be subtle, but it makes a difference).

Still a great image.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Matt. You gave me a few things to try. If memory serves the only sharpening applied to this image is the LR default capture sharpening and jpeg export for screen. It's becoming a common theme when I post images shot with the D7100 and good glass for people to suggest over sharpening. I'll go back and set the default settings to zero and see how it looks. One thing I didn't think about is the clarity enhancing sharpness. I'll also try setting clarity to zero and using contrast and/or curve tool.

[NorthernFocus]

Here is a re-processed version of the first image. Basic processing only, WB, shadows lightened a bit, highlights toned down, vibrance = 5, no clarity added, sharpening set to zero, selection brush used to increase contrast in the shadow area near the upper fall where there was a lot of mist. Also cloned out a few branches.

I agree the moss looks "softer", as moss should. There is some loss of detail in the darker areas of moss which could be brought out with some more selective brushing. I think using the clarity was what really pushed the sharp look over the top in the first version. Plus using saturation rather than vibrance really brought out the yellow/orange tips of the moss rather then the overall green. Overall this did produce a more natural look. Thanks for the input, Matt and everyone else who commented.

Re-worked version.


As first posted

[FlyingSquirrel]

Dan,

Thanks for posting this rework based on our suggestions. The rework is a HUGE improvement. As you said, it looks more natural. Very well done!