Subjecting to your prize prossession to professional scrutiny - Ouch!

[Cantab]

Donald, I've followed this thread with interest. This afternoon I loaded your original version and Chris's final version into Photoshop so I could flip back and forth between the two of them.

The biggest difference that lept out at me was the visual prominence of the rocks in the stream. They stand out more in yours because the conifers in the central middle ground are darker than in Chris's, in which the mid tones have been lightened up. Ultimately I think the question is what mood you were trying to create. My preference is probably your original version but I'd be happy to have produced either version.

As for whether any rotation is required, I had no sense that anything was amiss. Certainly shorelines are no indicator, the walls of a modern building are reliable but you don't have any of those in the image. I live in an area with lots of conifers; some are absolutely vertical, others are not. I played with rotation and came up with something similar to Chris's but am not convinced that it's 100% more accurate than in your original image.

[Manfred M]

"Very Ansel Adams by design, but not Ansel Adam in the blacks and greys. This photographer need to watch a film we did of Richard White talking about the zone system. It needs a deeper blacks and greys within the image. It as if the photographer is frightended of need to do stuff, which a real shame. Loving the design, loving the crop. Always beware of the getting it level.

But you need to learn to how nail that post processing. Your got some great landscape eye here but you don't have the post production off 'pat' "

Is he ever long-winded. He makes two points:

1. Make sure that the image is straight; and

2. Make sure that your black point, white point and gamma (mid-point) are set correctly to ensure that the image has a full tonal range. I can't think of any other way of ensuring that you get deeper blacks and darker grays in the image. The white point is important too as the combination of all three will get you a crisp, contrasty shot.

[shreds]

First and foremost Donald, I wouldn't fret about getting such 'critiques' as I am sure that you actually get far more erudite analysis here.

The academy appears to be a marketing vehicle for Mark Cleghorn's training, which despite it being his name on the site may not be him doing all the critiques.

(Looks like it is a South Wales money making training version to challenge the money making North Wales based SWPP)

One opinion is just that, an opinion.

An 'expert', was once described to me as well......'ex' a former or past, a 'spurt'....a fast drip of water.

Incidentally I like your original better and the critiques offered here by members in this thread to be far more useful !

[Donald]

Donald: How close was I to guessing where you made the shot from? Of course I made my conjecture based on the middle rock being Half Dome and there are many domes in the park.

No, that wasn't Half Dome. This has led you to the wrong conclusion as to the location.

The peaks are the 'Cathedral Rocks' and my location is at Valley View (or Gates of the Valley).

[ccphoto]

No, that wasn't Half Dome. This has led you to the wrong conclusion as to the location.

The peaks are the 'Cathedral Rocks' and my location is at Valley View (or Gates of the Valley).

Using Half dome as a semi-transparent overlay, you can see how I might have made this error in locale :-)



For all the critiques offered I say, BRAVO. Critiquing is easy on one hand because there's no ownership in the image, therefore you have nothing to lose. On the other hand, to be fair and objective requires a strict adherence to certain protocols, the first and foremost a lack of emotional connect. It cannot be what you would do; it must only be in regard to what the image requires to be successful.

I will stand by by selection process even to the point of telling that when I adjusted the mid-values in the sky, I chose not to adjust the rocks to those same values but reduced them to almost the exact value you had them in the original image. Only the brightest, most dominate "light" rocks were given a touch more "light."

Its been fun and I've so enjoyed the suggestions but regardless of the Ansel Adams wannabes, in the end an image is that which the maker determines as a justifiable rendition of the scene shown to him. Ansel Adams' views and renditions were but one view and one interpretation. Like you, I would rather be known for what I produce and not what I can emulate as the work of another. I am far more impressed with what YOU DO than I am with you trying to follow in the footsteps of another and I hope to see more and more of you, DMack! Get well and continue this journey.

[Donald]

Like you, I would rather be known for what I produce and not what I can emulate as the work of another. I am far more impressed with what YOU DO than I am with you trying to follow in the footsteps of another and I hope to see more and more of you, DMack! Get well and continue this journey.

Irrespective of the critique, I am very strong in the sentiment expressed in here. And as great fan of Adam, I all too well understand how that I can emulate him. That's not what at all what I want to do.

[xpatUSA]

I've recently joined The Photographer's Academy. There you can get professional feedback on your images.

"Very Ansel Adams by design, but not Ansel Adam in the blacks and greys. This photographer need to watch a film we did of Richard White talking about the zone system. It needs a deeper blacks and greys within the image. It as if the photographer is frightended of need to do stuff, which a real shame. Loving the design, loving the crop. Always beware of the getting it level.

But you need to learn to how nail that post processing. Your got some great landscape eye here but you don't have the post production off 'pat' "

With atrocious grammar and spelling like that, my personal inclination would be to ignore the "professional feedback"!

Welcome back, Donald, your original looks perfectly OK to my old eyes.

[rpcrowe]

First off, I am glad to see you back and I hope you are doing better...

Secondly, IMO there are several factors in this image which will not be corrected (if correction is needed - which I doubt) by a simple rotation.

First is the bend of the stream and what appears to be on a down grade. That, combined with the fact that many of the trees are not growing straight, makes a simple rotation difficult and not needed.

If one "wanted" to "correct" the original image (which I still maintain doesn't need any major degree of correction), I would possibly try using Camera RAW and playing with the perspective a bit. I tried the Camera RAW Filter on the image...



BTW: My doctor got my attention, at the beginning of this year. when he said that I needed to lose weight because I was in a pre-diabetic condition. I took his advice and have been on a greatly modified eating program ( fried foods, breads and pastry + sugary deserts). I have lost 30 pounds since the first of the year and feel quite a bit better. The doc has reduced my blood pressure medications by half and I have a lot more energy. I carried a 30 pound sack of chicken feed down to my chicken area yesterday and it was a lot easier than when I also wore an additional thirty pounds of fatty tissue around my belly...
My plans are to lose an additional 15 pounds and then to stabilize my weight about 185, a level, at which I know I am most healthy...

[purplehaze]

Donald, all I can say is that your original gives me a frisson that the other versions don't. The king is dead; all hail the DMack! (Just kidding about the first part, but not the second.)

[Donald]

Thank you all for you kind wishes. It takes me about 30 minutes to write message that would have usually taken about 10 minutes .... and and then when I read it through it doesn't seem to make sense. But we plug on.

Thank you all for the various contributions to this thread.