What’s Your Preference?

EOBeav · #1 (**permalink**) 08-18-2011, 02:39 AM

Again, on the Walla Walla River in NE Oregon, USA.

Just wanted your general thoughts regarding composition and editing. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments and suggestions.

Summer Stream by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr

Regarding high ISO: This was one of the last shots from that evening, so it was getting pretty dark. Add the MCP filter, and it was giving me exposure times of way too long to get good water movement.

EXIF
Camera Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi
Lens: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L
Exposure 2
Aperture f/11.0
Focal Length 17 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias 0 EV

dbright007 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-18-2011, 03:34 AM

Like this one a lot.
Maybe crop down from the top just a bit - the light area in the top left just seems to pull your eye away from the river. Great action in the water.

Would be curious to see the river exposed just a bit longer as you mentioned - it wont show as much motion but it would 'calm' the water around the rocks and make really peaceful pic.
Would be a little different take on the scene, but might turn out well also.

EOBeav · #3 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 04:17 AM

Thanks for the input. I'm probably going to make a return trip, so I may just try that.

milosh · #4 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 07:13 AM

Rick, I like this one better than the previous one. I agree about cropping the upper part a bit, but because of the busy background, not because of brightness. But again, cropping it would leave you with a strange crop ratio. What do you think if you lowered the camera to leave half of the upper part which is now visible and include that third rock which is now cut in half? I think that would give you more interest in the foreground and a nice line leading into the river.

Also, I like the slow motion of the water you have here, but it doesn't look so soft and smooth, especially between the first two rocks. I think you need to selectively sharpen these kind of images, or you could even blur some parts if selective sharpening is not enough. The selective sharpening would also be good for the background, there's way too much detail in it right now.

Finaly, regarding the high ISO...I suppose you focused on the foreground rock, but did you check how far the rock is from the camera? Maybe you could have had enough dof with f8... I'm not sure about this, I'm just pointing it out in case you forgot.

EOBeav · #5 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 08:22 PM

Good points, Milos. That lens seems to have the best sharpness at about 7.1, so I could have even opened up that far. That would have also blurred out those trees in the back like you had suggested, while allowing me to shoot at a lower ISO with a similar shutter speed.

While I get what you mean about softer water, my goal is to show water motion and direction without it necessarily being soft. I'm getting the best results that way between about .5 and 1 full second, depending on the speed of the water. Artistically, that's just an approach I've taken, and I know there are several different opinions on the topic. Your point is well taken, though. :-)

John Hendry · #6 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 08:45 PM

Like the image, but there is somthing about the crop try taking away a of the trees?

I think that the movment in the water is horizontial so a view crop if there is more of the image original might work.

Nice work

sk66 · #7 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 10:46 PM

My eye's are starting to be problematic, but I find there is nothing to focus on... The FG is "blurred" and the BG is "busy".
I think if this were to "work" it would need to be a very large print you could "get lost in" and focus on the two relatively small rocks.....

EOBeav · #8 (**permalink**) 08-19-2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sk66

My eye's are starting to be problematic, but I find there is nothing to focus on... The FG is "blurred" and the BG is "busy".
I think if this were to "work" it would need to be a very large print you could "get lost in" and focus on the two relatively small rocks.....

Also a good point. My thought was that the two rocks blend in too much to the water. As foreground objects, they're in focus, but the area around them is motion blurred.