I'd like some feedback on these images (Page 2): My reaction is that your first one is serene and the second is sharp (clumsy choice of words). What did you want to portray?

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

My reaction is that your first one is serene and the second is sharp (clumsy choice of words). What did you want to portray?

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

UTMike wrote:

My reaction is that your first one is serene and the second is sharp (clumsy choice of words). What did you want to portray?

Interesting thoughts, Mike. I changed the settings on the camera from the first to the second, and moved my field of view a few inches. I think perhaps the settings had to do with what you notice. I did find those hills quite calming. I'm not sure that's what I wanted to portray, but I guess it was, because I was annoyed at seeing the plant along the river. I would much rather it had not been there.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

AzPicLady wrote:

These two images were taken just minutes apart fro... (show quote)

Looks like the Columbia river.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

scooter1 wrote:

Looks like the Columbia river.

Sort of, no? But I wasn't anywhere near the Columbia on this trip!

KTJohnson Loc: Northern Michigan

The bldgs. along the river don't bother me. I also like the 2nd one better. You say you added more contrast but it looks to me to be a slight bit under-exposed compared to the first one. The colors have a bit more punch, I like that.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

KTJohnson wrote:

The bldgs. along the river don't bother me. I also like the 2nd one better. You say you added more contrast but it looks to me to be a slight bit under-exposed compared to the first one. The colors have a bit more punch, I like that.

Thank you, KT.I really appreciate your comment. I'm frequently told that my images are on the dense (dark) side.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Nice capture and can see what you were impressed with and trying to do. Lots of nice contrasts etc.
I dont find the buildings detract so much as the white blob beside them. Not sure what you could do with that.
My first thought tho was the horizon. Perhaps a crop to get that straight might be good.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'm left wondering what the intention and purpose of the shot is. If it's to produce a scenic then it would be better without the buildings and the bright patch near the centre. On the other hand if the buildings have local significance, they aren't large enough in the frame to act as a main subject.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

TonyP wrote:

Nice capture and can see what you were impressed with and trying to do. Lots of nice contrasts etc.
I dont find the buildings detract so much as the white blob beside them. Not sure what you could do with that.
My first thought tho was the horizon. Perhaps a crop to get that straight might be good.

I knew someone would mention that! I had my camera on a tripod that was leveled. So I have to assume that the horizon isn't level. When I moved it to where it would appear more level, then the river didn't look right. I agree with you about the white blob. I honestly don't know what that is. It might be a tailings patch, but that would be too close to the river. I agree that it is a problem.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

R.G. wrote:

I'm left wondering what the intention and purpose of the shot is. If it's to produce a scenic then it would be better without the buildings and the bright patch near the centre. On the other hand if the buildings have local significance, they aren't large enough in the frame to act as a main subject.

The thing that caught my eye in the scene was the undulation of the hills and how the morning light played on them. When I tried to move to where the buildings would be hidden or less prominent, then the light was wrong on the hills.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

AzPicLady wrote:

These two images were taken just minutes apart fro... (show quote)

Hi, Kathy,
I do, very much like this image, even more so the second version.
My first impression was that #1 was SOOC then you applied a gentle, graded touch of “haze filter” in pp to get the second version.
Anyway, well done; you delicately enhanced distant details while maintaining the necessary atmospheric perspective.
Nice gentle touch in pp!

Dave

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Uuglypher wrote:

Hi, Kathy,
I do, very much like this image, even more so the second version.
My first impression was that #1 was SOOC then you applied a gentle, graded touch of “haze filter” in pp to get the second version.
Anyway, well done; you delicately enhanced distant details while maintaining the necessary atmospheric perspective.
Nice gentle touch in pp!

Dave

Thank you, Dave. I don't have the haze filter in my version, so didn't do that. I did apply a graduated filter, though. I have a third version which I will post in which I treated that big white blob!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks to all of you who have provided direction for this image. I have reworked it (again). I wonder if this effort improved it enough.

(Download)