The Bridge at Moulton Falls

[SpiderBob]

This is from Moulton Falls in WashingtonThe Bridge at Moulton Falls-9102 by Robert Ruby, on Flickr

[mugge]

The tonal range is fine. Maybe increase global contrast a tad. This image in an improvement on the waterfall one.
Cheers Ole

[xpatUSA]

Very nice overall scene but the bridge itself has rendered almost painterly (somewhat blurred with grain). Perhaps a slightly smaller aperture, say f/5.6 - f/7.1, and focus on the bridge itself. Looks like one could not get closer with the fixed 50mm prime.

The RGB histogram has some odd-looking spikes in it ... I blame Adobe of course ...

[DanK]

I agree with Ole-this image has a better tonal range than your previous ones (the histogram covers pretty much the entire range), but it is nonetheless somewhat low in contrast and saturation. These are linked, if you use the most common editing tools, as increasing contrast in an RGB work space will also increase saturation unless you take steps to avoid it.

[Wavelength]

Nice image; including more of reflection could have given an added punch

[SpiderBob]

I was playing around with some others I have and I've decided I just need to go shoot these over again. The same things keeps coming up in all of them. I've also noted that the others are a bit flat as well, they need to me anyway, be a bit more crisp.

[pschlute]

I downloaded the full size version from your Flickr page. Are you sure you are not accidentally applying a photoshop artistic filter to the image ? It certainly looks that way viewed at 100%

It would explain the painterly affect

[SpiderBob]

I downloaded the full size version from your Flickr page. Are you sure you are not accidentally applying a photoshop artistic filter to the image ? It certainly looks that way viewed at 100%

It would explain the painterly affect

I wish I could say yes to that, but I don't use PS, I only use Lightroom.

I just checked to make sure my "enable library filters" was set to OFF and it was.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, bridge does need a bit work to make it stand a bit from the foliage.

[DanK]

I was playing around with some others I have and I've decided I just need to go shoot these over again. The same things keeps coming up in all of them. I've also noted that the others are a bit flat as well, they need to me anyway, be a bit more crisp.

Some additional information might help clear this up--in particular, whether you shot JPEG, what picture style you used if you did, and how you processed the image in Lightroom. However, I downloaded the full-sized image, and I have a few thoughts in the meantime:

-- A lack of contrast doesn't stem from how you took the shot. The amount of contrast in the scene is what it is. If the scene is low contrast, the final appearance depends on the processing--by you if you shoot raw, or by the camera or the camera and you if you shot JPEG.

--I think part of the problem is simply depth of field. If I read the exif right, you shot at f/4. The area around the pool in the foreground looks reasonably sharp, but much of the bridge seems out of focus, and the trees behind the bridge certainly are. So this is something you could fix when shooting. Give yourself more depth of field--say, f/8 or even f/11--and place the point of focus as far back as you can without throwing the foreground out of focus.

--You have some areas that are blown out--e.g., some of the foliage just behind the pool in the front. This is difficult, as the histogram suggests that the dynamic range of the scene may exceed that of your camera. However, this is a histogram from the posted JPEG, so it may be misleading. If you shot raw, you may be able to pull the whites and highlights down in LR and recover at least some of that detail. If the dynamic range is too large even for that, the only way to avoid losing details at one end or the other is to bracket the exposure. However, in my experience, bracketing is very hard to do well in situations like that one, unless there is essentially no wind. That's because of you combine two or three shots (in lightroom, photo merge to HDR), you can get blurring if leaves have moved. Lightroom has an option to minimize that effect, which I think works by not blending areas in the photo that don't align.

-- I think the image could use sharpening. That won't compensate for the OOF areas, but it might help otherwise.

[SpiderBob]

Some additional information might help clear this up--in particular, whether you shot JPEG, what picture style you used if you did, and how you processed the image in Lightroom. However, I downloaded the full-sized image, and I have a few thoughts in the meantime:...............

Thank you again, for your time with this. I always have just shot in RAW, nothing else. So, besides being shot wrong from the start, I'm now having a problem processing. I don't recall having such a problem with the processing process in the past, but with this whole group of pictures, it shows. That is why I need to start over with the shoot. I can't blame anything but myself, I see the problem when I look at the pictures. Taking the boss to Alaska next week, planned on a lot of pictures. I'll pay more attention as to the settings I take them with and see what happens with those when I get back. I've had this problem with the crispness of my picture for a while. It's pretty sad when you take a picture with a point and shoot and the crispness looks better than my 7D

I've saved all these comments I've been getting to a file and I will try to apply them in the next process.

[xpatUSA]

<>

-- I think the image could use sharpening. That won't compensate for the OOF areas, but it might help otherwise.

I tried that in RawTherapee on a download of the OP, using Contrast By Detail Levels (wavelets) and some low radius deconvolution sharpening. It was defeated by the lack of detail gradation at the bridge. I'd say Bob's idea to start over from raw could produce a good result ...

[Manfred M]

Let me throw some heavy hitters on this image; Topaz Sharpen AI, Nik Color Efex and then a solid round of dodging and burning (mostly burning):

[xpatUSA]

Let me throw some heavy hitters on this image; Topaz Sharpen AI, Nik Color Efex and then a solid round of dodging and burning (mostly burning):

I tried to compare the bridge detail with the original, but found that your edit was down-sampled by more than 50% to 2048x1356px, for some reason. No problem I'm sure for "most of us" but personally I find it less easy when comparing detail.

[Manfred M]

I tried to compare the bridge detail with the original, but found that your edit was down-sampled by more than 50% to 2048x1356px, for some reason. No problem I'm sure for "most of us" but personally I find it less easy when comparing detail.

That is the size I downsample all my postings to. Main reason is to ensure decent upload speeds to people with less than optimal internet connections. I find that viewing images that are 2048 pixels on the longest dimension generally give me enough data to properly evaluate them.