Some Landscapes in Central Indiana

pathfinder

I continue to explore processing to better display what I see when I am out and about. I am interested to hear opinions pro and cons about the images I am posting in this thread.

Cataract Falls continues to challenge me. But I think I am gaining a bit, perhaps.

[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-Winter-Spring/Cataract-Falls-in-Winter/776414208_9BKWi-X2.jpg[/imgl][imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Indiana-Scenery-and-Covered/Cataract-Falls-in-Winter/776371304_RWmEn-X2.jpg[/imgr]

































































The Big Trestle is an ugly steel bridge, bypassing a valley below, but attracts a lot of folks with spray cans - it is a challenging subject due to its sheer size




The forest offers lots of interesting subjects, usually with great ranges in lighting

[imgl]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Indiana-Scenery-and-Covered/MG6301299300tree-in-ths-sun/778044645_8c5Ze-X2.jpg[/imgl] [imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Indiana-Scenery-and-Covered/MG633765dry-leaves-1/778039987_7KEAp-X2.jpg[/imgr]

































































Are these as interesting to others as they are to me? Criticisms and comments will be cheerfully explored.:thumb

Swartzy

I do enjoy the compositions...the colors on the falls are nice but...and this is only my observation.....Topaz or NIK tonal contrast seems to be abundant these days in all types of portrait and landscape photography. The added detail, which seems to articulate a grainier look is cool but at times looks overcooked. A blend of detail with a tad softer appeal may afford a sweeter visual...all of course is to your (the artist's) vision.

Again, it is simply my preference to process a bit of each with selective layers and masks for a detailed but believable shot...not always but generally. I do love using the accentuated contrast to enhance background for subjects at times. Again, there is nothing wrong with these...just a matter of taste is all.

BradfordBenn

The trestle one is very striking, I am curious did you do processing on the clouds and color of the distance or is that direct from the camera? The challenge I am having is that about half way down the bridge it seems to turn into a "movie effect" feel for me, no longer a real photograph. Still great picture though

pathfinder

All of these were three frame hdrs 0, +2, - 2 fstops. Processed in Photomatix and CS4.

That trestle is about 1/2 miles long, so it does always look like the stantions are merging together in the distance. I do not recall any local editing in the trestle image of the sky or distance. I did increase the color saturation of the near graffiti. Most of the editing of all these images was global.

Keep the criticisms coming!

schmoo

I think you did well with a pretty complicated subject, Jim! Forests in winter and waterfalls seems simple but are so busy they often fall flat. The detail of the dead leaves is a great anchor in a set of wider landscape views. And the light there is really nice!

I'm not generally a fan of noticeable HDR, and I have to say that in the first two they actually take a lot away from what the information that we're trying to process. For example in the second shot, the foreground is nearly as bright as the middle ground, and because of that it takes extra time to discern what I'm actually looking at. Maybe I am also exceptionally slow

OTOH the shot with the carved tree is a nice use of highlights, clear shadows, and tonal range fro the background.

pathfinder

schmoo wrote:

I think you did well with a pretty complicated subject, Jim! Forests in winter and waterfalls seems simple but are so busy they often fall flat. The detail of the dead leaves is a great anchor in a set of wider landscape views. And the light there is really nice!

Thank your for your comments, Stephanie. The forest offers lots of interesting subjects, and can offer great ranges of lighting, but isolating and capturing images that are not overwhelming is not always something I succeed at. HDR, for me, does offer at least a solution to some of the lighting issues. I want to explore those leaves some more, they intrigue me with their determination not to lose them before spring comes.

I'm not generally a fan of noticeable HDR, and I have to say that in the first two they actually take a lot away from what the information that we're trying to process. For example in the second shot, the foreground is nearly as bright as the middle ground, and because of that it takes extra time to discern what I'm actually looking at. Maybe I am also exceptionally slow

I am quite aware that the second shot is hard to interpret at first glance. I toyed with altering the foreground or the background tonalities to create more separation, but finally accepted what I displayed. I will explore it further.

The water color in the midwest is frequently brown, but at Cataract it can be quite green in colder weather. I do not feel it is that far from reality.

OTOH the shot with the carved tree is a nice use of highlights, clear shadows, and tonal range fro the background.

I liked the carved tree too; what a great subject with nice cross lighting.

Thank you once again for your comments - I really appreciate each individuals opinions and comments.