Creekside....

[jax314]

This is my first post in the landscaping section. A few small adjustments have been made in Capture NX2 but only contrast, saturation, and a small crop. Please critique composition, color, and/or overall feel of the photo. To my untrained eye, it looks good...but then again, that's why I posted it here...to learn! Thanks in advance!

D5000
Exposure .4
55mm
ISO 200
f/18

[EOBeav]

Hi Jax, welcome to the forums. I take it this is in the Columbia Gorge? I'm going to be coming through the area on Friday and hope to stop long enough for some creek shots like this. [EDIT: Nope, I'm way off. Looks like you're in the Smoky Mountains.] A few thoughts:

1. The colors seem a little washed out, especially the greens. I'm not familiar with the software you're using, but if you don't want to shell out a ton of money for Photoshop, check out things like Picasa (from Google) or GIMP (higher learning curve). Even an online editing web app like PIcnik might do a good job for you.

2. I almost always use a circular polarizing (CP) filter when I'm shooting in this area. The nicer ones are a little spendier, but your images will be greatly improved. For scenes like this, it will cut down your reflections and improve your colors. I'm not a big filter guy, but I do think that is a wise investment.

3. There are a few spots in here that are completely washed out (white). That could be due to your longer exposure time. Depending on the time of day and the cloud cover, it can be tough to get proper exposure in this area. There are a few areas of this where the water flow is just perfect. I prefer to see more detail in my creek shots, but there are others who don't. That part is really a matter of taste.

4. Composition: How wide does your lens go? I'm guessing this is an 18-55 or something similar. I would zero in on one of those rocks, tilt your camera down a little more, and widen up as much as you can. That will give you a strong focal point while still capturing the path of the water.

Just a few things to think about. Also, f/18 might be a little narrow. I generally stick between f/11 and f/16 to get good image quality while keeping much of the scene in focus.

Keep up the good work! This is a good place to learn.

[navcom]

Exposure and technique wise, it looks pretty good. It might help the composition if it was in landscape orientation. In portrait, it looks cramped and doesn't flow quite right.

Hope that helps!

[jax314]

Thanks for the critique guys! OK, so to start things off, I did process the RAW file in Capture NX2 and did increase the vibrance, saturation, and contrast.......perhaps it needed it a bit more? I agree about landscape vs. portrait.....I really have no idea why I shot it that way, but I will give it a go the other way and I do think it will look better. I do not know if there is a way of avoiding blowing out SOME of the white water while trying to blur the water with a longer exposure is there? The reason I went with f/18 is because it allowed me to use the base ISO of 200 with a shutter speed that would allow blurring of the water. I guess I could have used a wider aperture and brought the ISO to LOW1 which is essentially ISO 100. Again, guys, thanks for the replies and I'll work on some of the things you mentioned.

[jax314]

Oh, I forgot to mention...this was the Smokies! Good job.....Also, the software is Nikon's RAW processing software. I do have access to other software such as Photoshop, but Capture NX2 seems to give the best reproduction of colors with Nikon RAW files.....

Finally, according to Photoshop, the RAW file has NO clipped highlights, but does have some clipped shadows....perhaps the resized version that is linked to Flickr makes is compressed enough to make it seem like that????

[jax314]

Here's a version I did with Photomatix.......any better?

[Krusty79]

I think the first one has more "pop" and contrast. The 2nd one is more subtle and since the water is not so bright, I notice the moss-covered rocks more. I think it's a matter of preference. Nice shot!