Lynn Creek

[kurtdriver]

I rather like this, but is there too much of the trees? I'm thinking that I should have lowered the camera a bit, giving it more of the rocks and water and less of the trees. Anything else? Your comments are truly appreciated, thanks.

The larger (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4310301956_15d606c44b_o.jpg) one.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4310301956_3bcd71c093_b.jpg

[Wicked Dark]

I think if you wanted the subj to truly be the rocks, then yes, less of the trees would help. Maybe getting up a little higher would help as well. Right now those two elements are duking it out for prominence. And it looks oversharpened on my monitor. I like the shutter speed used though...we get a sense of movement without pesky blown out highlights.

[casil403]

Kurt I think your guts are right here and you called it correctly. I think too it is a tad over sharpened as well and also I would like to see a wee more detail in some of the rocks....some look a bit almost blown out in the background and the tops in the foreground. Water flow is bang on. At leaast that's how I see it...others may differ.
I love the balanced ones in the background so I would have loved to see them a bit more prominently featured with the water also if it's possible. I think there is the making for some wicked neat shots here. :thumbup:

[Bambi]

I won't repeat it, but I agree with Casil and Kurt

[Mad Aussie]

Wicked Dark (welcome dude) nailed it here with his comment that asks what was your main subject/feature to be? If it was the rocks and water, then certainly more of those and less trees is the answer.

I also agree with the over-sharpening and blown out bits. Bracketing your shots about 1 stop apart can help with this.


I think Casil is right when she says that water flow is good.

[kurtdriver]

Thanks to all of you. I hadn't realized that some of the rocks are blown out, but I see that now. I didn't think to mention that this is film, Velvia 100 in medium format to be specific and I don't know what they do when they scan it. I should find out, I've done nothing to it myself. How can you tell it's oversharp? I'm going to read up on the subject today. Thanks again, Kurt

Edit: Would oversharpening give it the appearance of more detail? It looks that way when I compare the one on my hard drive to the one here. I'm wondering what Flickr's resizing does to it.

[Mad Aussie]

How can you tell it's oversharp? I'm going to read up on the subject today. Thanks again, Kurt

Edit: Would oversharpening give it the appearance of more detail? It looks that way when I compare the one on my hard drive to the one here. I'm wondering what Flickr's resizing does to it.
In this case we can see the leaves don't look right. Around each leaf is a little 'artifact' ... a halo of colour that shouldn't be there.
Oversharpening does give the appearance of more detail but with the penalty mentioned above.
The one on your harddrive is being viewed on your monitor which may not be as sharp or giving you the clarity that the printed version does depending on your monitors quality/ settings.

If you didn't sharpen this then the lab must have ... I'd be questioning them about this if you've only just had this developed.

[kurtdriver]

Thank you MA, I'm going to ask them about it. Kurt