| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2006 04:36:55 PM · #1 |
Improvement can be a very subjective thing. I had some time today so I thought I'd go out to Wahkeena falls and reshoot my "Like Water Under a Bridge" shot from the cliche challenge. I did so because I wanted to see what the 5D could do and also think my Photoshop skill has improved over the last 6 months (as it tends to do when you still have a ton to learn).
My Original:
The redo:
The question is...is it better?
Some thoughts jump out at me:
1) I do like the green of the original, but that is a product of shooting in April versus September. I'll have to remember to do a waterfall run next spring.
2) On the new shot, since it wasn't for a challenge, I was afforded the ability to composite two shots. This allowed me to do a fast shutter of 1/100th to freeze the trees (they are quite blurred in the original).
3) I wonder if the PP of the new is better or not. I do think it has more contrast and snap, but is this always to the best effect?
I thought I'd include a few 100% crops to compare the 300D with the 5D. I have no idea where the noise came from on the 300D since I would have been shooting as close to 100 ISO as possible to lengthen the exposure. But you can definitely see a grid pattern of noise.
The 300D (after PP):
The 5D (after PP):
Thoughts are always welcome... |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:04:48 PM · #2 |
I like your original much better. The lightness of it as well as the color just works better, IMO. The thing I'd like to see improved if it were me is to make the water brighter. I like how it looks the best in the background where it is the brightest. In the foreground it seems too muddy. Although that's just a nitpick but I think that's your best bet in getting some contrast in the shot if that's your goal.
Message edited by author 2006-09-22 17:05:33. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:10:27 PM · #3 |
| It looks like there is really a remarkable difference in sharpness to me. but I think it looks better with the overall softness of the original because it's more dreamy and less stark and real. of course as mentioned the green is better than all the yellows in your new one. but i like the water and rocks much better in the new one. hope that makes sense. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:12:08 PM · #4 |
The 300D outplaying the 5D? Whaaaat?
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:12:49 PM · #5 |
hmm, i don't know ... there are a lot of factors to count in, for example the light (what time was it?), the wind (what differences?), which photoshop version ? :-) j/k ... as you know on such small photos it's hard to noitce any big differences, the IQ looks very similar on both photos but looking at crops it's obvioulsy that 5D sensor catches more details and stuff but i think you got the noise artefacts on new photo from postprocessing, if you played with shadow contrast that can bring in some heavy noise (BRING THE NOISE !) ... my overall conclusion : as photos both photos are very good, but ... for printing or using them in larger dimensions i would surely use the 5D photo ... ummm ... what esle ... ? ... umm, yea. that's it.
peace,
goran
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:16:26 PM · #6 |
As I mentioned I liked your original better but then again you had better conditions back then so like what others have said it's hard to compare.
Btw, what do you think of this? All I did was slightly brighten the whites and darken the blacks using selective color. I probably wouldn't go any further than this otherwise you lose that dreamy look jaded_youth mentioned although it's probably already gone in my edit.
Edited for dumb spelling mistakes.
Message edited by author 2006-09-22 17:19:31. |
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:24:00 PM · #7 |
Of the original and new shot, I prefer the original. It's much softer, and I like the crop better. The new version feels so cramped to me, I like being able to see the scale and size of the falls in the original. The greyish water was the only thing that had bothered me in the original... yanko's edit fixed that quite nicely.
Originally posted by yanko:
As I mentioned I liked your original better but then again you had better conditions back then so like what others have said it's hard to compare.
Btw, what do you think of this? All I did was slightly brighten the whites and darken the blacks using selective color. I probably wouldn't go any further than this otherwise you lose that dreamy look jaded_youth mentioned although it's probably already gone in my edit.
Edited for dumb spelling mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:35:49 PM · #8 |
left a message on the reshoot...
and let us all please remember, it's _not_ the freakin' camera...
;)
|
|
|
|
09/22/2006 05:36:22 PM · #9 |
| i actually like the second/processed one better , it looks more natural |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 07:14:54 AM EDT.
