Thanks Stan. I had a nice sky and full clean flow. I have not had any luck real early in the morning. a cloudy day mid morning seem to have the best light.
It looks pretty good, all except the water... it's not blown out by much, or it's on the edge, but there is a real loss of detail in it.
I am not sure how you shot it, but this might be a case where it's best to shoot one shot for the water which is underexposed a stop or so and to get some water detail, and then one for the rest of the shot, and just blend the water in from the underexposed frame.
It's a nice composition, and I like the clouds in the sky, the trees are sure lit nice, and there is great detail in all of the shot... but the water...
Thanks Jim. I have many shots at various shutter speeds and exposures. I am pretty sure this was not blown in the raw or after processing but before downsizing. I will take a look for others. My monitor is pretty dark, 80cd/mm^2.
Here is another one. How does it look. Using threshold, I can't find any blown area in either however, even the downsized ones.
That;'s definitely better, Ben. But it would still be great to see more contrast in the water; perhaps double processing the raw to blend in the water from a darker version with the contrast boosted a bit. Sure looks like as beautiful location.
Thanks, and I realized that this falls is pretty laminar so the flow is smooth to start with. I went back and added a process that increases definition without changing the exposure. At full size or in print the water has good texture, but does not show up so good at reduced sizes.
Here is the one with enhanced water texture. I would probably not use this in print.
The edits are definitely better. You are right, some waterfalls have a smoother flow to them, so a compressed view like this on the web will loose some micro detail that will show up in print. I am thinking that #3 will print very nicely.
The edits are definitely better. You are right, some waterfalls have a smoother flow to them, so a compressed view like this on the web will loose some micro detail that will show up in print. I am thinking that #3 will print very nicely.
Jim
Thanks Jim, I will be trying it if my Teton shots don't trump it for walls space.