Dark Channel

[Krusty79]

I've been giving a lot of critiques lately, so I am offering one of my recent shots for a critique as well. When I composed this, I was concerned that the channel is not really leading the eye towards the sunset, but when I look at the image on my pc, I think the channel is strong enough of a subject so that doesn't matter. The sunset can just act as a backdrop. So, the main aspect I would like feedback on is the composition, but of course, any other suggestions are welcome. Does the sky need some dodging/burning? I need to learn how to be subtle with that tool. This image looked brighter on my monitor at home. Thanks for looking.

f/11
4 second exp.
ISO 100
-1.3 underexposed
21mm focal length
Flash -not
.6 Lee graduated ND filter

[Psyclop]

I like the picture, I've done a little test here. Duplicate layer put it botom, flip horizontal,
used mask on top layer so I have youre pic with sunset the same side of the water
I can show it to you on demand.

[SwissJon]

I don't like the idea of flipping the sky or foreground separately. The colouration of the stream will be wrong, there's no light reflected on it and there would be if the vertical part of the water was below the sun. As it is the stream leads into the mid toned area of the picture which then leads to the sun, using the whole of the picture, which is hardly a bad thing.

I'm not sure if this picture might have too much foreground though. Cropping at the bottom of your name seems to give a more pleasing layout, and it means that the channel leads from the corner rather than the edge, makes it easier for the eye to wander up it. As it is, that small amount of mud along the bottom seems to be a bit of a block to that particular journey, and the mud itself doesn't provide a smooth journey into the photo.

No D&B needed.. The contrast between the bright and not so bright areas of the sky adds to the dramatic effect in the picture. Although I think next time I'd be tempted to use that 0.9 Lee grad ND instead.

All in all a really nice picture, only thing I'd do is crop it a bit at the bottom.

[LoveDSLR]

Since I'm not a landscape photographer that would go back to reshoot it again, I just use the 'Kobayashi Maru' method.

[EOBeav]

I feel the same way, Krusty. I like to offer up my own shots for critique once in a while.

This was a great time for a grad ND filter. I try to simulate that in Lightroom, but dang if it doesn't bring out some noise when I don't want it to. I really like how that stream leads me in to the rest of the shot. I really don't have anything negative to say, though. If anything, the yellow seems a bit intense on that left side, but I'm probably just being nitpicky. That's really a matter of taste. This is a nice shot.

[mwanafunzi]

Because it is underexposed, the channel does not make for a good subject. Although, it does have some very interesting detail waiting to be captured.

If you were to take this shot again, you might want to expose for the channel and the sky seperately; then tone map the images.

[EOBeav]

Originally Posted by mwanafunzi

Because it is underexposed, the channel does not make for a good subject. Although, it does have some very interesting detail waiting to be captured.

If you were to take this shot again, you might want to expose for the channel and the sky seperately; then tone map the images.

Again, that's a matter of taste. If you're not going for the multi-exposure look, don't do it. There's a time and place for that, just as there is a time and place for the single exposure look.

[mwanafunzi]

Originally Posted by EOBeav

Again, that's a matter of taste. If you're not going for the multi-exposure look, don't do it.

I might have given the wrong impression, I am not talking about producing an image with a multiple exposure look, but rather an image with a better dynamic range.

Tone mapping is a valid option, especially if the filter you are using is not giving you the required result.

[Krusty79]

@Psyclop - That's something I haven't thought of, but I'm not that good with PP. I'm just getting the hang of layers, but that sounds like something worth trying, just to see how it looks. Thanks for the suggestion.

@SwissJon - Your reasons make a lot of sense. Maybe that's why I don't that technique mentioned often? Still, I'm curious how it would look. It looks like you and LoveDSLR both recommend less foreground. Thanks.

@LoveDSLR - Thanks for showing the Mr. Kirk crop

@EOBeav - I did use a .6 (2 stop) ND grad. I noticed that part of the sky is still kind of hot, so that's why I asked about dodging/burning that part of the sky. I might have to break down and get another ND grad and stack them, but stagger them because the sun creates the brightness gradient around it. I'm not sure if that's the best way to handle it, though. Thanks for commenting.

@mwanafunzi - I only have a vague understanding of tone mapping. I know it's one of the steps when I use the trial version of Photomatix. It's another process I need to understand. I bracket my shots a lot, but realized I usually preferred the underexposed version, so I didn't bracket this shot or else I would have tried it in Photomatix. In this shot, I do like the contrast created by the black areas, but I might like a tone mapped version also. I'll use the bracketing more often. Thanks for the feedback.

[LoveDSLR]

This is what I see and why I distort your photo.