Is image too bsuy

[silverbirch]

I took this a couple of weeks ago, and wanted to show the change in the water, from the still at the top, to the sheen over the rocks, then the movement downwards. I think I've done that but wonder if the pool at the bottom right is distracting. Original below: f/13, shutter 1/100, iso 200, taken on tripod, no flash.



I've tried a couple of crops: here
DPP_00842 semi circle fall copy 2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

and here:
DPP_00842 semi circle fall copy | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I guess I like them all for different reasons, but ideas please about the pool to the right in the first, and crops.

Thanks for looking.

[RichardTaylor]

It a bit busy for my taste. I prefer the tightest crop.

[ktunacik]

I like the third one the best, too.

[silverbirch]

Thanks for your comments. It's funny how "less is more" isn't it :-)

[baajero]

Nice photos, I tend to prefer to shoot with the direct of the water... It gives the feeling of motion... do you see what I'm trying to say

[silverbirch]

Originally Posted by baajero

Nice photos, I tend to prefer to shoot with the direct of the water... It gives the feeling of motion... do you see what I'm trying to say

Thanks - it's very photogenic area :-) I'm not sure I do understand .... could you post a picture to show me perhaps? Thanks

[Barry Jackson]

Nice concept of showing the transformation from still to active.

I might would lose a little off the top and I would darken the triangular rock on the left and the rocks on the right. This would carry the eye more to the action of the water. The pool to the lower right is distracting but what bothers me more is the overexposure of the pool at the bottom center. For my taste I always like to see a little detail in the white areas if possible.

If you are a person who does not like HDR, a graduated neutral density filter might have helped hold in the detail in the water at the bottom.

Always be careful of clipping your highlights.

[silverbirch]

Originally Posted by Barry Jackson

Nice concept of showing the transformation from still to active.

I might would lose a little off the top and I would darken the triangular rock on the left and the rocks on the right. This would carry the eye more to the action of the water. The pool to the lower right is distracting but what bothers me more is the overexposure of the pool at the bottom center. For my taste I always like to see a little detail in the white areas if possible.

If you are a person who does not like HDR, a graduated neutral density filter might have helped hold in the detail in the water at the bottom.

Always be careful of clipping your highlights.

Thanks for your detailed critique.

I'm still pretty much a newbie with Photoshop but will try your suggestions of darkening the rocks. Even although it was very overcast I got those blown out areas.

I'm very disappointed in the pool bottom centre also - I've noticed it happens a lot with these kinds of photos. I'll check out the filters - thanks.

Oh and I do like HDR - how do you use it with water?

Clipping my highlights - would you mind explaining - thanks. I'm guessing it's to do with how I've done the levels and curves?

Many thanks again.

[silverbirch]

Originally Posted by Barry Jackson

If you are a person who does not like HDR, a graduated neutral density filter might have helped hold in the detail in the water at the bottom.

Always be careful of clipping your highlights.

Are any brands recommended? Or is that a non-no question? Thanks

[Barry Jackson]

To use HDR to help with water(or many other subjects) one of the exposures needs to be dark enough to see the detail in the brightest part of your picture. You can accomplish this by more than three brackets(exposures) or by larger variances between the exposures.

This scene does not have a waterfall but it does have detail from the brightest area(the sky and reflection) and the darkest areas(shadows of the greenery.

Barry Jackson | HDR Prints by the Artist | Summer Stream

Some people may not use HDR but borrow by the use of cloning, detail from an underexposed frame. This is best done by setting your clone tool to a small percentage, maybe 25%, and build up the detail slowly. To do this you have both the frame with the overexposed highlights and the underexposed frame on the work area at the same time.

Sample from the image with the detail and clone into the image and area without. I have used this technique in many ways since I learned how to use it. I've used it to replace heads, eyes, and hands in portraits and to place unusual objects in other frames.

Clipping refers to exposing an area more than the sensor can record. If you take a point in the upper part of curves and move it to the top of the graph you will see the detail in the whiter areas disappear. Those details and the curve have been clipped. You can also see clipping in the histogram.

This was not a problem with shooting negative film because you could expose for the shadows and burn in(expose longer when printing) the highlights. My only problem with digital is is shoots a lot like slide film. It was impossible to get detail out of clear slide film which is what happened when you overexposed it.

I would recommend the cokin system. It allows some flexibility some of the other systems do not. With a cokin system you can slide the filter up and down in the holder to change the placement of the darkening effect. Of course this works best if you have the large cokin filters rather than the smaller ones. This purpose alone is worth having a cokin filter holder and a cokin graduated neutral density filter. In fact you don't have to even have the holder but just hand hold the filter in front of the lens.

Good luck.