Waterfall re-look

[darin]

did a bit more in post - thoughts?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=527&stc=1&d=1187668752

[Jon]

did a bit more in post - thoughts?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=527&stc=1&d=1187668752


IIRC, I liked the last version but it did seem a bit bland. Is my memory correct in that you bumped the contrast and saturation in this version? It definately has more 'pop' to it.


Edit: My only nitpick on this one is that I think the lower right corner could use a bit o' burning.

[nevadamedic]

I don't see how you guys can see things like that, it all looks the same to me.

[darin]

I left the lower-right corner w/o the burning - I actually like it better this way. :D

But - you noticed, so $.03 to you! :D


This was two shots, merged - taken at two different exposures - several stops apart. The water is the under-exposed shot, the trees/top half of the rocks (and lower right) is the more-over, but still properly-exposed shot.

[bullypulpit]

did a bit more in post - thoughts?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=527&stc=1&d=1187668752

Great pic, but a little bit slower shutter speed would've increased the sense of motion in the water

[darin]

Great pic, but a little bit slower shutter speed would've increased the sense of motion in the water

Thanks - wasn't much light available. That's actually TWO images - one slower-to-the-point of limit of available lighting (the water) and a faster, which allowed the background to not over-expose. :)