|
|
|
M.M. Meehan
{K:3751} 6/11/2006
|
Thanks Eb. That makes the photo come alive. Adds more texture.
I can see where I should take more time to play in the digital darkroom to enhance my photos.
Cheers,
Maggie
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 6/10/2006
|
I gave your photo a whirl, Meehan. I played with sharpenning, saturation and some complex contrast and brightness changes using the shadows/highlights adjustments in PS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.M. Meehan
{K:3751} 6/10/2006
|
Yes, I see what you have done in the blend. The water in the river has some excellent light on it, now, and the moss is very velvety and nice.
I wondered about RAW because of the bit of yellow I see in the greens, and wondered if it was over saturated, only. But no matter, the moss is probably a lighter green than the leaves are, anyway.
The light appears to be coming from the top right and lights up the part of the leaves that fall in its path and so I wanted that top left corner to be out of the sun's path and darker.
I have already lost 2 comments to the wrong clicks here, so I shall submit this while I am still ahead. :))
Good stuff, and thanks for showing the photos you used in the blend.
cheers
Maggie
|
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 6/10/2006
|
Attached is the secondary exposure for the rapids.
|
Secondary Exposure |
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 6/10/2006
|
Attached is the primary exposure as adjusted.
|
Main Exposure |
|
|
|
|
Eb Mueller
{K:24960} 6/10/2006
|
Thanks, M.M. You seem to know what you want in a photo. I can't be as sure because I like it many ways. I see your point about darkening the right side. I do shoot in RAW and alter the saturation and other dimensions at will. I usually like my colours to be intense. The main exposure is for the trees and leaves with the rapids completely blown out. The foliage and shadows were further processed with shadows/highlights in PS. The secondary exposure was for the rapids which was then spliced in and blended. Your idea of including the original exposures is great!
Eb
|
|
|
|
|
M.M. Meehan
{K:3751} 6/10/2006
|
I wonder if you have loaded the two images that you have blended to Usefilm? It would be interesting to see the differences and how the blend has changed the light in the photo.
I find the right side to be quite bright compared to the left and wish that you had used a tiny bit of darkening or burning on the white of the trees and brightness of the light on the right.
I want the top left to be darker, also and would burn that bunch of leaves in the top left.
This might leave us with a view down the river (bright on the water) with the leaves and moss framing the water (darker).
I think, from the color of the moss that you are not shooting RAW and you might have over saturated, just a tad.
I have tried something that is almost the opposite to what you have done. My water is dark, where yours is light. My trees are lighter, where I wish your trees were darker.
But this is just my musings for the moment. Its a very woodsy, mossy shot, in what appears to be very high light therefore high contrast.
|
Rivers |
|
|
|
Ace Star
{K:21040} 6/8/2006
|
beautiful series really breathtaking green and light :)
excellent
wish you all the best
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 6/8/2006
|
Very nice composition, and great work on the exposures with the two shots, Eb!
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Pat Oates
{K:3046} 6/8/2006
|
Nice sharpness (moss on side of tree and maple leaves). The mixture of full sun and shade makes the shot really vivid.
|
|
|
|
|
Efrain Frank Borges
{K:71} 6/8/2006
|
Stunning photo.
|
|
0 
