Helmken Falls

I have clarified, sharpened and contrasted this picture in Paintshop,

on the advice of another photo.net member. I usually like to leave

my photos the way they are shot, but have been reading about scanners

and how most people need to do some repairs to the photos, generally

in the contrast and color areas. Scratch and spot removal is

justified, also, I think. And so, I begin to wonder how much is real

photography and how much is computer manipulation? Has there been a

forum on this that I have missed reading?

Photo manipulation is a big buggaboo. But you didn't cross any lines here. Unfortunately I don't have time to critique the photo... but I can say some about photoshop etc.

 

Scanning does soften the image and mangle other things. So cleaning that up is obvious. But dodging and burning, adjusting contrast and brightness etc as well as adjusting colors is nothing that can't be done in the darkrooms. In fact there are a lot of things you can do in the darkroom which tools in photoshop are very similar to.

In continuation to what Carl said, I don't feel that 'computer manipulation' makes an image less 'real photography' any more than darkroom manipulation has for over 100 years. It is a bringing into line what the camera has produced with the vision and feeling of the photographer using the 'today' tool-the computer. There is also the additional aspect of correcting the losses caused by transfering images into the computer.

I couldn't find a 'before' version of this picture and so am unable to comment on the effect of the manipulation. As it appears now there is the feeling of the power of the falls and the wilderness of the area.

Thank you for the comments. This feedback helps me understand that the end product of the photo should be the best I can achieve. All help and advice on how to achieve the best is appreciated.

 

I have attached the first picture of the falls again, for comparison.

There are very large arguments going on about how much computer enhancement is too much. I believe it was Popular Photography that chose a picture of the year last year that was a collage made by computer -could not have been done without it. I personally don't like manipulation that makes it look fake, but the reality is that you have to correct for display on a monitor, and you might as well make it look as good as you can. And has been said before, the good darkroom tech always had an advantage. So why not the computer tech? This is a nice shot. Thanks for posting.

First on digital editing. If it can be done in the darkroom then why not do it digitally? And just because no one has yet figured out how to do something in the darkroom why should it limit what you do digitally. I would venture to say that very few are now looking to discover new darkroom techniques.

 

 

On the image itself. This is a great picture, it really gives one s sense for the raw power of the water. It as if you are watching it cut the gorge on an hour by hour basis instead of over millions of years.

 

Your uploading the original vividly brings out the benefits of the adjustments you made. It's like lifting a veil from in front of the lens to allow the viewer to see the beauty of the scene.

Margaret, this is fantastic. Nice job with composition and enhancement. This is a real winner.

This is a beautiful image Margaret! It speaks for itself. I'll throw in a few thoughts on digital photo editing though.

 

I've been dealing with digital versions of my photos for a couple of years now. At first I paid extra to have my 35mm images put onto a CD when I sent the film out for processing. Nowadays I use a digital camera.

 

I've come to realize that the process of producing a good photograph involves more than original composition and camera settings. The tools available for finishing photos are an integral part of the whole process - whether digital or in a photo lab.

 

When I sent my film to a photo processor, somebody or some machine made decisions on how to make the images look best. I had no say in the matter. That arrangement was easier for me in some respects. Now that my photos are 100% digital, I'm saddled with the responsibility of deciding how the images look best. That can be a lot of work!

 

The fact of the matter is that you have no choice but to use some digital tools if you want to manipulate digital photos. And speaking from experience, learning to use those tools probably isn't a bad idea. For example, I have a web site where I've posted a lot of photos over the past couple of years. After posting maybe a thousand photos, I only recently learned that there was more to preparing a photo for display on the web than resizing it. I didn't realize that at a minimum, most downsized photos need sharpened to look best. I didn't realize that a few adjustments for contrast and color could make a world of difference in a digital photo's appearance. Now I guess I have a lot of rework to do!

 

So, even though it is most gratifying to see perfect photos coming directly from the camera, I see no shame in using digital photo manipulation as an extension to the camera's settings.

The more I look at this pic, the more I like it, with or without sharpening. The unsharpened image has a more mystical, cool feel.

The above comments about photomanipulation are noted. Like makeup or perfume, it is ok until the effect is noticeable. I resharpen most images, only to try and reproduce the look of the uncompressed 'chrome. I consider this an attempt to fix a compression artefact, nothing more.

A very good photo, this is much better than the other version you submitted. I use editing tools to enhance sharpness too, because resizing reduce it (and because I use a 50 scanner too); unfortunately also the grainy effect has been enhanced, next time you could try with different settings.

Love this image.Very dramatic with the gray mist,you can feel the power of the water Margaret.

Wow. All that great help and information. Thank you everyone for getting me set on the right path. Its all great fun, though, isn't it?

I have attached the original to this file for comparison, rather than having it a seperate photo.

I gotta say I really like the grainy effect in the fall. It adds to the robustness and pure power of the water.

Wow! What powerful photos, Margaret. I have to confess that I sometimes feel a bit of regret when one of my digitally manipulated "improvements" gets higher ratings than the original which was dear to my heart. One of my few photos that have over ten comments is, in my opinion, one of the worst images that I have ever produced--but I leave it up since some people say that they don't care what the original scene looked like. Hypocrite? Maybe, since I like to trust my own judgment. A little digital work goes a long way with me, and I have tended (as I learn a little bit) to do too much digital work--especially with sharpening and saturation, but sometimes with contrast as well.

 

In this case, I don't know which is better. I like them both.

I ilke this one, nice shapes and contrasts. Must look nice on a large poster. Maybe it would have been better if the foreground was closer to the lens to create more sense of dept. But still, very nice photo.

 

Regards,

 

Julien

Thanks Julien. I was at the edge of the retaining fence, hand held and shooting with the lens poking through those little holes in the wire fence. It was raining and windy. I had my zoom lens zoomed as far as it would go. I was still shooting with my quality at small/fine at this time, so I don't believe this would blow up very nicely to a large size. There is a commercial outlet where I could send it and let them try to see what they could do with it, but quite frankly I don't think it would go much beyond snapshot size without going all to *ell.

Your most recent addition to this folder, brought me here. Has to be your very best moving water image - this one has a lot of impact on me!

Its a huge roaring waterfall. Spectacular to watch. When we were there our friends took us up to the waterfall. It was raining. The road was washed out. We drove over a bailey bridge to get across the washed out road. The river was just foaming up the sides of the bailey bridge. But we went up over it anyway. Thank heavens it was still there when we came back from seeing the waterfalls. (2 different ones. we did not get to the third as the road was impassable.) There were wild flowers blooming in the woods and at our lunch stop there was a humming bird feeder just covered with the wee creatures. I wish I could faithfully record everything as it looked to me. This is one that turned out not too badly, I think.

Oh my ! I love this picture.

Thanks. It was one of my first uploads. I hardly knew that photoshop existed. Nature has its glorious moments! This was a rainy day. I am surprised I do not have mist on the lens, actually, on thinking about that.

 

Thank you everyone for all the comments and ratings. This one, my rainbow, my fire 'chimney log, are my most treasured photos, I think. My older ones. I have to get back to photography, and off my pc.

This is just beautiful Maggie. I actually prefer the original because I like its softness, and the digital noise in this version is too much for my liking. I don't mind grain, but I don't find digital noise has the same effect. I hope you don't mind I'm attaching an alternate version that I think shows what I like about the first one, but incorporates some of what you've done with the second - I reduced the noise (possibly too much - makes it look a bit unreal), as well as contrast adjustment and just a tiny bit of sharpening. Just a thought for alternate editing approaches - I realize I'm coming in years later here so maybe my comments are not so relevent - I mainly just wanted to say how much I like it.

Thanks so much for taking the time to show me that. Yes, in your version the actual water that is falling is brighter and stands out from the mist more than in the original. Looks good. I am undecided, now, again, but still leaning toward the original.

 

Speaking of Barry F. Look at him commenting on this way back when. :)) I should go over my old photos more often. Thanks for bringing me here.