I would not even open up Photoshop to play with this. Not worth one click of the mouse. Just my opinion.

Had to give it a try. I am no where close to the skill as many of the others here. Still have a lot to learn.

my attempt

Used to use sepia toned Ektalure B&W paper on both Portraits and Landscapes. Did many oil tints in the early 8o's, mostly on copies of old family photos. I used regular oil paints and cotton balls.

I wonder how many of the readers here have a clue about oil tinting B&W prints. I have not done that in many years.

I read once that Ansel Adams did this same thing with his wonderful photographs. Being completely ready to trip the shutter on his view camera. Only taking the one that was just right.

When I was still in the photography business in the 80's I had the nightmare experience of having a lab accident that destroyed most of the negatives of a wedding I had shot. When I told the bride what had happened I ask her to borrow negative and even the Polarid prints taken by guest and printed any thing she wanted to create an album of her wedding. It was a real difficult job and certainly not great but was better than nothing. I was so glad that I never cared about guest taking photographs it save me this time. I lost money on the job but the bride and her family were understanding and remained customers. My view was always that if my photographs were not better the Uncle Bill's then I would be better off at the house watching TV. Of course in those days of film and manual cameras you had to know a lot more about the technical aspects of photography than today. I am so glad I no longer need to use a camera to make a living. It has been nice being my own customer the past 20 years even if I am a lot more critical than any customer I ever had.

I too liked the first one and would have been proud to have done so good myself. I was just saying that I saw two other good photos in it and would have taken all three while there if possible.

I liked the photo like it is. I would also make two different photo out of it. One cropped for the waterfall and the other for the rocks at the bottom of your original. I will try to attach the two I cropped from your original. I say try because I am still new to the forum.

I think I have it now.

CROPPED FOR WATER OVER ROCKS

I liked the photo like it is. I would also make two different photo out of it. One cropped for the waterfall and the other for the rocks at the bottom of your original. I will try to attach the two I cropped from your original. I say try because I am still new to the forum.

I liked the photo like it is. I would also make two different photo out of it. One cropped for the waterfall and the other for the rocks at the bottom of your original. I will try to attach the two I cropped from your original. I say try because I am still new to the forum.

My first good camera was a Nikon Photomic Tn with a 50mm f/1.4 lens I purchased in 1968. Still have it and it is still a good camera. I've had many others since then form 35mm to 8x10 view. Owned a studio for 20 years in a small town which meant you photographed anything from a passport photo to a family portrait to a commercial job. Did both b&w and color in my lab and my own retouching. Loved the quality of large format and the controls (lifts, shifts, tilts, and swings) and small f stop f/32 and f/64. All that said I do like the digital and don't want to go back to the time and expense of film or having to spend hours retouching negatives and print enhancement. I do in 20 mins what I once spent all day doing. I still find myself limiting the number of shots I take because of film cost, old habits are hard to break. The good part of that is thinking and planning first before pressing the shutter button. I am slowly building up my equipment again but finding I don't need as much now. Also I no longer make my living with my camera. I now shoot for me.

Another reason for adjusting the polarizers keeps you from overdoing it. Once years ago I took a photo of a koi in a koi pond. It was beautifully colored and I totally removed all the surface reflection. You could see the fish OK but It looked strange as if the fish was flying instead of swimming.

I use a Plustec Opti Film 7200 to copy slides and film strips. I have had very good results with this scanner. It is not too expensive but does take some time to scan and you have option for the quality of scan you want.

Your photography friends are in my opinion correct. The colors in fall leaves is much more intense. You can not just put the filter on and take a picture, you have to rotate the filter while looking through the filter to see the intensity of the color. It does this by removing the reflection of the sky light off the leaves allowing the color to show up. You will be able to see it. Also using the filter on landscapes will cause the sky to be bluer as well as making grass greener and leaves greener. This is the most useful filter you will ever own. You can do much of this in photo shop but why spend the time when you can do it in the camera in 5 seconds by simply rotating the filter.

Thanks josoIII for the info on how to add a drawing. Even if I don't agree with those who don't care about the rule of thirds and the Golden Ratio, they certainly have the right to do as they please. Any rule in photography is breakable and should be broken sometimes but only if there is a valid reason. I have often done it according to the rules and then played with it to see what happened if the rule was broken. Having fun is what it is all about. When making a living rules are not broken too often. As in all things in life when rules are broken sometime there is a price to pay, and in the case of selling a product the price is lost of income.

Any way look at the attached drawing. You will notice a minute difference, but it does make a difference in perception. It is less in 5x7 and 4x6. It is most noticeable in non standard size final prints.