Autumn at Padley Gorge

smr

Messages
1,841
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
That top one is gorgeous. I think I'd tone down the saturation slightly but otherwise great. The other isn't really on the same level, not that it's bad by any means but I'd personally not use it - I think a quicker shutter speed would work better, enough so you get some sense of movement in the water but not so it completely blurs - no more than a second usually but it depends on the speed of the water. I think more detail in the water would pull your eyes into the middle of the shot which isn't happening with the creamy water. It still looks pretty green at that section too...
 
I'm going to be a bit brutal Joel, but please understand that it's in no way personal, it's just about that small department of your probably admirable life that has produced these images. This is the crit channel?

They both look far too gaudy - I feel uncomfortable looking at them. My feeling is that photographs of the land should normally evidence respect for it and all its qualities, and afford it a dignity that's built into our celebration of it.

When you're in the landscape, I wonder what you feel about your relationship with it? I'm curious, because I like your framings. They're good.

I hope that you'll forgive me for saying what the worst thing is in these two images - its how the uppermost falls have rendered in the second image. They look like a piece of pasted-in plastic. The context of this remark is that as a matter of course I have a prejudice against long exposures of moving water - but that's just the catch-all and the decider has to be whether it genuinely works in expressing something, or comes over as a recently-learnt gimmick or an on-going habit by people who've bought the filter and so have an (I kid you not) emotional investment in using it. And it becomes one of those formulaic things like the rule of thirds.

The light under trees isn't noted for the saturation of colours! I'm inviting you to have a re-think about what you're up to here. Or just ignore me, & carry on ...

I think that across all time the essence of photography has been having some sort of sensitivity, and enough technique to communicate it. Not much to do with resolution or the latest kit. But now I'm rambling ...
 
I'm going to be a bit brutal Joel, but please understand that it's in no way personal, it's just about that small department of your probably admirable life that has produced these images. This is the crit channel?

They both look far too gaudy - I feel uncomfortable looking at them. My feeling is that photographs of the land should normally evidence respect for it and all its qualities, and afford it a dignity that's built into our celebration of it.

When you're in the landscape, I wonder what you feel about your relationship with it? I'm curious, because I like your framings. They're good.

I hope that you'll forgive me for saying what the worst thing is in these two images - its how the uppermost falls have rendered in the second image. They look like a piece of pasted-in plastic. The context of this remark is that as a matter of course I have a prejudice against long exposures of moving water - but that's just the catch-all and the decider has to be whether it genuinely works in expressing something, or comes over as a recently-learnt gimmick or an on-going habit by people who've bought the filter and so have an (I kid you not) emotional investment in using it. And it becomes one of those formulaic things like the rule of thirds.

The light under trees isn't noted for the saturation of colours! I'm inviting you to have a re-think about what you're up to here. Or just ignore me, & carry on ...

I think that across all time the essence of photography has been having some sort of sensitivity, and enough technique to communicate it. Not much to do with resolution or the latest kit. But now I'm rambling ...

Thanks for the feedback.

I like both of my images..

With regards to the first image this is what it looks like in it's RAW unedited form with Adobe Landscape Colour Profile and Cloudy WB;

I applied a minimal amount of editing - shadows lifted slightly but the Vibrance adjusted to +7 and the Saturation to +10.

Do you prefer the RAW version, if so the only difference is the Vibrance and Saturation, and although they are only incremental adjustments (we're not talking +20, +30 or anything like that) I think that the light had a big impact on the leaves and colours.raw.jpg

With regard to the second I didn't want anything in the upper falls to be tack sharp and wanted a wash of colours, I de-texturised them so to try and achieve this effect, I just wanted more of a palette of autumnal colours washing amongst themselves.

The lens was also wide open and the scene looked completely dull and lifeless without stopping down further by having to use a polariser to avoid that, so the shutter speed whilst not as quick as I'd have wanted was the quickest I could use.

I like the way that the water looks and it's blurriness, but I wouldn't have wanted anymore than that.
 
Interesting set of pictures and comments. While I don't always, on this occasion I'd agree with Droj largely.

I can see why the leaves in the first are that incredibly intense shade on your screen - the cloudy white balance has forced that appearance with a temperature of 6500K and +10 magenta. While that makes everything look super-warm, I'd probably try something around 5500-5800K for a more natural look. I can see from the still of your vlog that the colours weren't really so strong.

Having said that, if the target market for these is social media or possibly advertising then fill yer boots, because I'd image with colours this intense these images wouod be extremely popluar. Knowing what people want & then producing it is important when taking a picture for others. They are nice pictures, but they would have a greater appeal to me if they had a slightly more natural look.
 
Actually I think droj is right with the first image Toni, the second image I am happy with. But with the first image I've just had a look at the image in Photoshop and readjusted the colours and now the original looks garish in comparison, it's got this very lime green saturation on it I think. I think I need to edit images, step away for a few hours and come back etc. rather than editing in one go.

What do you think? I've readjusted the saturation levels on individual colour channels, mostly desaturating the yellows.

Original...

Autumn by Joel Spencer, on Flickr

Colour adjusted...

Padley by Joel Spencer, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
What do you think? I've readjusted the saturation levels on individual colour channels, mostly desaturating the yellows.

That definitely looks more natural, but I can still see a yellow colouration in the rock highlights. Did you get a chance to try readjusting the temperature?

Sometimes it's quite hard to get everything natural in PP - stepping away & returning later can be very helpful. :)
 
I can imagine the colour was pretty intense when the sun came out for those brief moments. I’ve been to Padley many times and the colour can be striking in those situations but there really is no need to up vibrancy and saturation in editing, in fact going the other way is often beneficial.

It’s always worth taking a break after an initial edit because you can get blind to what you’re doing, especially if that’s big colour changes. I take several weeks or even months now, forget rushing for social media, it does help when that emotional connection has disappeared so you can be more selective in what gets processed.

The second really does need a quicker shutter speed and doesn’t work so well without golden foliage. Can you go back?
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
I rather like the edited first image, looks more real and natural.
Digital does somehow cook the colours at times.

Fully agree on editing and stepping away for a few hours, yes a good habit to get into.
Things always look different with time and consideration rather than in haste.

Great location and nice images, enjoyed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
Do you prefer the RAW version, if so the only difference is the Vibrance and Saturation, and although they are only incremental adjustments (we're not talking +20, +30 or anything like that) I think that the light had a big impact on the leaves and colours.
Of course there are matters of taste involved, but I feel that you've gone a bit Ken Rockwell here. Yes the raw as you call it looks a lot better. You say raw, but of course we can't see raw files till they've been processed in some way, and by default this is done by the camera, if only to produce a preview, and by the raw processor used after download, which may have presets of its own.

Normally I rely on my camera's auto wb, aimed at neutral rendition - it's pretty good, but sometimes it needs a tweak or two.

To me, too much saturation is anathema to landscape, and I never increase it, or vibrance either.

... the shutter speed whilst not as quick as I'd have wanted was the quickest I could use.
You can change the iso ...
 
Of course there are matters of taste involved, but I feel that you've gone a bit Ken Rockwell here. Yes the raw as you call it looks a lot better. You say raw, but of course we can't see raw files till they've been processed in some way, and by default this is done by the camera, if only to produce a preview, and by the raw processor used after download, which may have presets of its own.

Normally I rely on my camera's auto wb, aimed at neutral rendition - it's pretty good, but sometimes it needs a tweak or two.

To me, too much saturation is anathema to landscape, and I never increase it, or vibrance either.


You can change the iso ...

I could have changed the ISO, but I am OK with the shutter speed and ISO 100 is a cleaner image.

When I say RAW I use the term loosely I guess. I don't know how much 'modification' Lightroom applies by just importing the photo into it's library or after you click 'Develop' on it but I get the feeling that the photo and colours may not be for everyone. Well I guess there's no such thing as a photograph that is completely liked by everyone as there will always be different emotions evoked from one person to the next, just like some people will love a song dearly.... and others will hate it.

Here's the photograph with absolutely nothing applied to it, all default settings (colour balance, colour profile, auto wb etc.)

Maybe just not your cup of tea?

padleyun.jpg
 
I could have changed the ISO, but I am OK with the shutter speed and ISO 100 is a cleaner image.

There's no point having an expensive camera which probably has excellent ISO capabilities and religiously leaving it at's it's lowest setting - it might be a bit cleaner but realistically ISO500 or 1000 is going to be pretty negligible and the benefit is a shutter speed that will help you achieve a nicer effect with the water. Anyway enough said as you don't seem interested in my comments!
 
There's no point having an expensive camera which probably has excellent ISO capabilities and religiously leaving it at's it's lowest setting - it might be a bit cleaner but realistically ISO500 or 1000 is going to be pretty negligible and the benefit is a shutter speed that will help you achieve a nicer effect with the water. Anyway enough said as you don't seem interested in my comments!

I have read your comments, not ignoring them. I guess I could have raised the ISO but the water looked ok to me. I will go back soon I think as the colours won't be like that for long.
 
This image really is all about the white balance. IMHO there's almost no need to adjust anything other than the colours and white balance...

And it's difficult to pick what WB to go for, I'm not too satisfied with a warmer tone as the light that hits the trees gives this kind of luminscent feel so dialled back a bit cooler may work well. It's almost impossible if you want that warmth feel, which is something I tried to convey with a neutral colour balance from just how intense the light was on the leaves.

Difficult to process for, even editing individual colour channels...

No editing at all apart from slight highlight pull back which makes a negligible difference anyway and only WB adjusted. Adobe Colour I find is a neutral(ish) profile.

4024.jpg5095.jpg7476.jpg
 
Well done for trying stuff Joel.

Looking at those, I'd guess 5200K - 5500K would be about right. I do like the one at 4024K for the natural looking rocks, but that's left the foreground leaves a bit too dark.

(y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
Right here's my edited version. I think I'm finished with this image now. May come back to it another time but probably not as I am happy with this.

I have to say thanks for all your comments, I think this looks better compared to the original.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top