Amnicon River and trees

Posted by matt kuchta on Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:03 pm

All times are UTC-05:00

0 people like this post

First unread post

| 5 posts |

Page 1 of 1

10D, 28-135@28, tripod, polarizer
1/8, 1/4 (for rocks in FG)
f22
Exp 0
ISO 200

digital blend of two exposures - one for sky and foliage, one for the rocks and shadows. A bit of saturation and color boost in PS. Slight crop off top and left side. EDIT TO ADD: Also, the FG rocks look a little soft - I'm thinking I didn't add enough sharpening there.

It feels a little static to me - is there a more dynamic composition hiding here?

cheers,
-matt

NSN 0017

Posted by:
matt kuchta
Forum Contributor

Location: Western Wisconsin
Posts: 1329
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Visit website

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:46 pm

E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor

Posts: 86776
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002

View portfolio

Overall a very nice and peaceful shot. The digital blend is done very well.

E.J. Peiker http://www.EJPhoto.com
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/EJ-Peiker-Nature-Photographer/

0 people like this post

by Ken Cravillion on Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:06 pm

Ken Cravillion
Forum Contributor

Posts: 8534
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Oshkosh!!!
Member #:00072

View portfolio
Visit website

You have nice light but I agree, it feels a bit static.

Ken Cravillion

0 people like this post

by Rich S on Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:01 pm

Rich S
Lifetime Member

Posts: 3833
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: NH & MI
Member #:00019

View portfolio

Blend is very well done. Concur on a bit static. If there's one thing I've learned from some of E.J.'s recent scenics it's the importance of having a foreground element of interest (and simplicity). None of the rocks here quite qualify, although if the big one were a few feet further out and to the left it would work for me.

Rich

0 people like this post

by Jenny Ellerbe on Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:07 pm

Jenny Ellerbe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 644
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Hi Matt,

I agree that this seems to be missing something although I am not sure what that is. I think the large boulder in the foreground might look better farther to the left. And maybe a slight crop off the bottom to make the curve of the foreground more prominent. And I think more dramatic light might have helped you out also. Just food for thought ...

Jenny Ellerbe
Louisiana
http://www.jennyellerbe.com

0 people like this post