opinions requested on 3 versions of shot

Lex

I've taken a shot that I like, and may enter a contest with, but I'm betwixt and between on which of these 3 versions I like best, anyone have any input, and explanations as to why? I'd appreciate some experienced nature photographer's opinions, and contest winner opinions, lol.

General comments on shots welcome too. thanks for your input.

Doug

1.



2.



3.

Lex

I guess I made it to tough, or nobody likes it maybe... Well so far, after 7 people, I guess the jury is still out...

Doug

hawkeye978

Well, maybe its my monitor, but they seem a little dark to me. I like the colors in the third one but I'd like the rocks in the back a little brighter. I like the basic shot though.

My two cents...

Lex

hawkeye978 wrote:

Well, maybe its my monitor, but they seem a little dark to me. I like the colors in the third one but I'd like the rocks in the back a little brighter. I like the basic shot though.

My two cents...

That's a fair assessment, your input welcome, thanks! I'll save my own comments until more people have commented (if they do) so I don't bias anyone's comments. We all do have monitors, I can't say mine are well calibrated, but again, open for review.

Thanks again Hawkeye.

Let me re-phrase what I said a little, I will appreciate EVERYONE's input, not just experienced nature folks. But those are certainly desirable. :-)

Doug

jelly beans

I like the first one best. It looks like something I would actually see out in the woods. Doesn't look like it's been processed much. For my taste, the second is a little too grey and the third is a little too rosy.

I do like the overall shot though. Very nice.

Lex

jelly beans wrote:

I like the first one best. It looks like something I would actually see out in the woods. Doesn't look like it's been processed much. For my taste, the second is a little too grey and the third is a little too rosy.

I do like the overall shot though. Very nice.

The first one is sharpened and dialed up contrast at least in PS. You are probably right JB in that it's probably the least processed other than normal level increases. But the coloration is fairly true to life for sure.

Item 2, is just mildly processed.

Item 3 was edited in Nikon NX I brightened rock points, and the save just seemed to mod the overall color orientations. Even if unintentional.

Hawkeye, I like them a little dark because it adds to the depth imo, to have the top part of the photo fading to darkness.

But then to you have to visit the Smokies to get a feel for just how dark things can be too, under the canopy of the smokies forests, the settings can be a bit dark. That varies certainly, but overall, it can be pretty dark.

Thanks for all the input folks! More is still welcome. But I think I'm tending to agree with JB at this point.

Doug

pathfinder

I prefer the warmth and light on the rocks in #3, but the cooler water tones in #1....

Number 2 does not appeal to my eye. It looks under exposed. Reading the pixels in the water in #2 shows that they water is depicted as a mid tone gray, not what I believe running water should read.

hawkeye978

Doug,

Not that I see your comments and your watermark, I understand the darker scene. I lived in Knoxville for a year many years ago and as soon as you said it was in the Smokies, memories came back to the darkness in the woods.

Lex

hawkeye978 wrote:

Doug,

Not that I see your comments and your watermark, I understand the darker scene. I lived in Knoxville for a year many years ago and as soon as you said it was in the Smokies, memories came back to the darkness in the woods.

Pathfinder, you gonna make me seam two images together? .

I understand what your saying. I used control points to emphasis rocks, and a lot of control points in NX! NX is more a dabbling for me, than a really experienced thing, most images, I just use camera raw adjustments, and basic photoshop sharpening techniques, and don't use NX, but occasionally, I use it if I really want controlled lighting.

I hate to get to much more complex here, but JB brings out valid points, sometimes, the most original is the best. I believe he's spot on there about the rocks being more natural in 1.

Thanks Hawk, I see, so your an old Smokies traveller! You must come back sometime to shoot! The Smokies is a fantastic home base. People say, don't you get tired of shooting the same place all the time? I say, well so far, I can't say that I have shot the same place. It's different each time really. This was on the gravel road past Tremont. I was shooting way down into the lower basin from near the hiking parking area at the top. Beautiful cascading water area there.

Actually, looking at this again, it would be fairly easy to merge the two JPGs I bet and use the water from 1 and the rocks from 3.

Doug

hawkeye978

Lex wrote:

Thanks Hawk, I see, so your an old Smokies traveller! You must come back sometime to shoot! The Smokies is a fantastic home base. People say, don't you get tired of shooting the same place all the time? I say, well so far, I can't say that I have shot the same place. It's different each time really. This was on the gravel road past Tremont. I was shooting way down into the lower basin from near the hiking parking area at the top. Beautiful cascading water area there.

Doug

My wife and I keep saying we need to go back, for now we are heading to Monterey and Yosemite in the late summer so I need to start gearing up for that.

Lex

hawkeye978 wrote:

My wife and I keep saying we need to go back, for now we are heading to Monterey and Yosemite in the late summer so I need to start gearing up for that.

Sounds like a great trip!

behr655

I like #1 the best but I'm sure #2 is more natural. #3 lacks the green cast that is always present in shots in the forest, making it look less natural.

Bear

Marc Muench

I would like to see the water in one with the rocks in three with the color cast scalled back a bit in both cases. I do believe this image would look a bit better with more a longer exposure!

Cheers
Marc