Swamp Mess Up

[dimitrz]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to get an Erie feeling while taking this shot ( Swamp 1) - however I messed up big time , in Swamp 2 & 3 I selcted Vivid option in colour setting within the camera to boost the contrast/saturation - it further messed up the photos --- I tried to see if I can somehow rescue the photos and Swamp 1 edited is the best I could get.

What I would like to know is a) what did I do wrong & b) how could I have got the effect and beauty of this swamp ?

Flickr links to the photos

swamp 1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23531375@N00/2430082247/

swamp 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23531375@N00/2430082379/

swamp 3
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23531375@N00/2430082323/

edited
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23531375@N00/2430895908

EXIF details is with the photo itself

Thanks

[mountaintreker]

This isn't going to be easy as I see it, but here goes. I think the one thing that I find myself constantly struggling with is when I look at a scene in all of its entirety, I have to remind myself that I am looking at in the three dimensional mode, and so I think when I expose the image in my two dimensional camera that it is going to come out exactly the way that I saw it in person. Wrong! The camera sees in the two dimensional mode and doesn't miss anything good or bad, and the camera doesn't have a brain. When we look at a scene we unknowingly block out anything that we don't like in the scene. It is hard to explain but try this some time when you take a photograph. You look upon a grand landscape take the photograph bring it home put it on the screen and then it hits you. It is not what you saw. Where did that piece of trash come from or that telephone pole or that shiny beer can. I don't remember seeing that there today. I don't know what you envisioned in this swamp, but apparently you saw something that you liked, and the camera did its job and captured exactly what was there and I think it let you down because it is only a tool in the hands of potential artist. We apply the inspiration and then we tell the camera what we want and control the image. May be under different set of circumstances in different light or with something that would give it the Louisiana bayou look it could have some possibilities.. I can't tell by the image that the camera caught that it is a swamp. It doesn't fit the image that my mind recognizes as a typical swamp. There is something missing. Does that make sense? From one photographer to another I struggle with the same thing at times. keep on shooting and shooting . Learn and absorb all that you can and practice and practice.

Mountaintreker

[i_luv_ph0tos]

thi isnt vritiquye sec but...

it douesn't look like a swamp to me...

i love the third pic though!

[dimitrz]

mountaintreker thank you for the wonderful insite ......I got the point you were trying to make and so true you are .......how many times do we take our senses for granted without realising what a great machine it is.


i_luv_ph0tos thanks for your comments am glad that you liked the 3d photo though I beleive that I could/should have done a better job ( should have put iso in manual at 100 maybe)

[HockeyFan]

Would any graduated filter have allowed you to get more light on the stuff in the lower portion of the field of view, while not overexposing the trees and the sky showing through from behind? I'm toying with this same issue.
Normally, if within reasonable range, you can use a fill flash to get light on the subjects below, but with nature, I hate using a flash.
What is typically done? Do we use raw on these shots and then Photoshop to "fix" things?

[candleman]

theres seldom beauty in a swamp..
i think the lighting sux in there and thats what messed you up.
maybe a time exposure at dust for a partial sunset shot could do the trick.
But i'm no expert.
good to see you're putting effort into salvaging what you like