•some room for pulling details out of those whites
Hi Daniel ...not saying my edit is correct , i was just thinking that their was room for pulling the highlights back .•
I like your edit Dennis though (just me!)
I would not have gone that far, I did not
say too far!
•not saying my edit is correct
Its a decent one Mike ...i reckon there is some room for pulling details out of those whites Mike ,what do you think.
Could be wrong but a try ...not saying anything wrong with the origanal just looked like there was detail their ..View attachment 72024
I see nothing wrong with the first image (or any of them for that matter) with the exception of the water level from left to right going ever so slightly uphill. I think there may also be an optical illusion at play here! I've managed to get the level right by applying 0.4 degrees of clockwise rotation, but it still looks like it's flowing uphill, even though I can see (with the grid) that it's not.
Aside from this, I think the original image at the top of the page looks best on my screen.
What do you think of this version then?
Cool, certainly a step in the right direction!
•I'm guessing then you think I should go further
As in my origanal comment Mike ,not saying youre metering was out,just wondering if their was room pulling a bit back.thanks for the effort Den, always welcome.
On my screen, your edit looks quite dark, but this is one of the problems with digital - we're all looking on different equipment.
None of the whites were blown but I tried to keep them clean and fairly bright - maybe too much, so here's another edit using a curves layer with the 'bright end' of the curve dragged down a little with a couple of the darker feather areas masked off to keep them bright.
What do you think of this version then? I think I prefer this - thanks for the input
Mike
View attachment 72025
Hi Mike,
I prefer your second edit. I reckon you could probably bring the highlights back a bit on the top of the wings, as you can see that there is detail there from Den's image.
Also, is it FF or cropped? Personal preference on my part, I'd like to see the same gap between the reflected head and the bottom of the frame as the head and the top of the frame
Overall a nice, pleasing image though
OK everyone - Looks like I had to get back on this one, so I've tried a final version trying to get the last detail out of the feathers - one more curves adjustment and the brightest areas were subjected to a bit of the Nik details extractor.
View attachment 72144
In all seriousness, thanks for the feedback - it's what this place is for.
Mike
And I think that's the best edit
Very well done
I'm not sure...
If you compare them side by side whilst I appreciate the the final edit does bring out more feather detail it starts to look false. The light is coming from above and thus the top bent over feather "should" be more blown out or white than the side feathers - the final edit to my eye looks unnaturally lit.
We do sometimes strive so much to pull out detail we often forget to keep a check on reality....
IMHO
I'm not sure...
If you compare them side by side whilst I appreciate the the final edit does bring out more feather detail it starts to look false. The light is coming from above and thus the top bent over feather "should" be more blown out or white than the side feathers - the final edit to my eye looks unnaturally lit.
We do sometimes strive so much to pull out detail we often forget to keep a check on reality....
IMHO
On my screen, your edit looks quite dark
this is one of the problems with digital - we're all looking on different equipment.