# Anna Ruby Falls



## smoke665 (Jul 10, 2018)

Few from yesterday. C&C always welcome.

From the trail



Helen trip07092018_666.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr




Helen trip07092018_660.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

At the falls pano



Helen trip07092018_678-Pano.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

Right side view



Helen trip07092018_691.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr


----------



## Jeff15 (Jul 10, 2018)

Very nice.....


----------



## Jeff G (Jul 10, 2018)

Too bad these didn't come with sound. Beautiful spot!


----------



## Fujidave (Jul 10, 2018)

Very nice shots smoke, lovely colourful and so peaceful looking.


----------



## ceemac (Jul 10, 2018)

Jeff G said:


> Too bad these didn't come with sound. Beautiful spot!



Nd filters smooth out the sound too. wouldn't work.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 10, 2018)

Fujidave said:


> Very nice shots smoke, lovely colourful and so peaceful looking.



I was really trying to slow down on these, Concentrate more on pre-planning a final vision. These were all done in LR no presets, no composite (except the pano) using some new ideas I've come up with on processing


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 10, 2018)

ceemac said:


> Jeff G said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad these didn't come with sound. Beautiful spot!
> ...



Yup, but in this case no ND filters used. Had them in the bag but didn't need them. This is a deep gorge up the mountain with heavy shade.


----------



## ceemac (Jul 10, 2018)

They're very nicely done.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 10, 2018)

ceemac said:


> They're very nicely done.



Thank you


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 10, 2018)

Very nice.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2018)

Nice locations, good compositions, good shutter times for the various water-representations, but IMHO, the contrast between the shadows and the highlights is a bit too much, a slight bit jarring. I just do not like the way the lighting has been rendered. Very dense blacks, and very bright highlights, and a mid-tone range that just does not feel quite right.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 11, 2018)

@Derrel Much as I'd like to claim full responsibility for the light, it's pretty much WYSIWYG. The dynamic range from the top of the gorge to bottom seemed like a gazillion stops. The blacks and shadows were lifted, the highlights lowered and selective burning and dodging on both to even out the image. Part of it may be the lower web resolution. In the original on the monitor there is a lot of detail showing in the shadows. 

Part of it may be my style as I lean more toward the extreme detail of photorealizm. In the last photo of the falls, see the ant on the log????LOL The style doesn't suit everyone.


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 11, 2018)

These are very nice.  #2 is my fav. #1 seems to have a lot of green in the water ... maybe a B&W on #1. For my tastes, on #3 and #4 ... just seems to be on the edge of looking purposely over-processed ... an edge where nobody wins. Being over-processed is okay if if is purposeful ... but on the edge one wonders if it was purposeful or what ...?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2018)

Over-processed, as Gary mentioned...yeah, my feeling as well. I try to avoid using that description most days, but if the shoe fits...


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 11, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> These are very nice.  #2 is my fav. #1 seems to have a lot of green in the water ... maybe a B&W on #1. For my tastes, on #3 and #4 ... just seems to be on the edge of looking purposely over-processed ... an edge where nobody wins. Being over-processed is okay if if is purposeful ... but on the edge one wonders if it was purposeful or what ...?



I'm slightly confused because in a previous thread with the first image of the same series you called that one "nice" The processing except for the shadow recovery and highlights on the last two, is the same, thanks to the synch button. So what changed?


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 11, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Over-processed, as Gary mentioned...yeah, my feeling as well. I try to avoid using that description most days, but if the shoe fits...



Guess I need to ask which shoe you're trying to fit???  All images were fully processed in LR,  all of the images were single files, no composites (except for #3 a panorama), no presets, the sliders and tone curves on all the images are basically the same, maybe a tweak here and there. There is some variance between the images where selective dodging and burning took place, primarily because of the wide dynamic range from top to bottom, but other than that??? The "new ideas" I referred to earlier in the thread involve using sliders, tone curves and adjustment brushes. I'm in a bad area for signal and internet or I'd attach a clip of the the Develop panel. So how is it that you consider it "over-processed"?

The K1 was rated at 14.6 stops EV,  the K1 ii appears even higher.  I've heard claims of 16 stops, but I haven't verified it, which might also be some of the "over processing" look you seem to be seeing as the location I was shooting in, was a perfect spot for it to show off.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2018)

Over-processed, as in looks awful on-screen. I tried tactfully describing what the images looked like, then another poster said it more-boldly, and now I'm giving you the unvarnished opinion, since you keep trying to defend your newly-developed idea, and to  explain away our opinions on the appearance of the photos. Over-processed as in badly-processed. Looks un-pleasing. Super-contrasty. Detail-less blacks. Heavy green pollution in the water on #1. Harsh contrast, yet mid-tones that lack nuance and lack presence. One can recover highlights, but the tone curve needs midtones that stand up, that show up, that have some presence, within an image that possess a wide dynamic range, and these have poor mid-tone presence in the presence of deep,detail-free blacks, and very bright highlight tones. I do not care that they are single files, and that these are not composites: the rendering of the lighting was what I mentioned earlier; specifically,  I do not like the way the lighting has been "rendered", and that's what the photographer must do: he needs to take the exposure data, and manipulate the tonal values from light to dark, and "render" the lighting, in other words, represent the light, show the light, show us a rendering of the lighting and what it was like. That's where these fall short, IMHO. For me.

As Gary mentioned above, "For my tastes, on #3 and #4 ... just seems to be on the edge of looking purposely over-processed ... an edge where nobody wins"....

Earlier, I was saying the same thing as he said, and here in this post, I'm actually taking the time to explain, in great detail, what I meant by the term over-processed...too much processing theory, not enough results that please...images that looked to me, perhaps purposely over-done. Regardless of whether the processing was of single files, or done in Lightroom, or done in Photoshop or any other image processing application, the end result, the rendering of natural light in a woods scene, looked contrived to me, with too much artifice, and as a result, the rendering of natural light and a woods scene looked...less-than-appealing to me. I cannot state it any more plainly or honestly.

I fully "get" your point when you write, "The K1 was rated at 14.6 stops EV, the K1 ii appears even higher. I've heard claims of 16 stops, but I haven't verified it, which might also be some of the "over processing" look you seem to be seeing as the location I was shooting in, was a perfect spot for it to show off."

Wide DR is one thing, and I have a couple cameras that have wide DR,and I am familiar with shooting wide-SR single exposures, but my issue was with the way the data within the exposures was rendered...all that DY has to be manipulated. What I see are detail-less blacks, brilliant  highlights, and mid-tones that do not stand up, and an overall, total image "look" that looks...not-pleasing. You state that you're working on a new processing system; as a viewer, I'm telling you, Gary's telling you, that the look is being perceived as over-processed...perhaps that's not the right word. I do not really like the way the scenes have been rendered; there's wide dynamic range, yes, but the "feel" to the light is un-pleasing, to me. A picture is more than the brightest point and the darkest point,.and how widely they are separated; the scenes need to have some level of verisimilitude,m and these look the opposite, filled with artifice, which is why both of us fell back to the word over-processed.

I hope I've explained my thoughts more completely. As mentioned, I loved the shutter speed choices; water blur degree is a tricky thing, and I think you handles several water scenes fantastically, and like the compositions (#2 is an especially lovely composition), but did not like the way the lighting was rendered during the software-phase. I thought that the processing was the least-compelling aspect of these otherwise very solid photographs.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 11, 2018)

@Derrel neither trying to defend the process nor explain away anything, merely trying to understand. The images were not SOOC but they weren't overly processed either.  I get back into a decent signal area I'll send you the info on processing  because I'd like to know how/where we differ, and what to adjust for the future.

As I posted above, the other poster (you mentiion) liked the first image of the series in another thread posted separate then didn't in these. Same series, same processing, pretty much all synched to it, leaving me a little confused as to his change.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 11, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Over-processed, as Gary mentioned...yeah, my feeling as well. I try to avoid using that description most days, but if the shoe fits...
> ...



Given your responses above, you now have a full answer. Hope the trip is awesome.


----------



## blurred45 (Jul 12, 2018)

Awesome shots of those nice falls!


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 12, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Given your responses above, you now have a full answer. Hope the trip is awesome



Thank you Derrel. Whether we agree or disagree, I've always found your criticism valuable on some level. When we get back and it slows down I need to study them in more deatil.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 12, 2018)

blurred45 said:


> Awesome shots of those nice falls!



Thank you!!


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Jul 12, 2018)

really nice, but the first two look a little too green? compared to the last 2 images, my brain just has a hard time believing that it was that green.  Keep being drawn to the last image so I guess that's my fav!


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 12, 2018)

birdbonkers84 said:


> really nice, but the first two look a little too green? compared to the last 2 images, my brain just has a hard time believing that it was that green.  Keep being drawn to the last image so I guess that's my fav!



Not much difference in the processing, but there is a difference in location. The gorge is a narrow cut into the mountain, about a mile long. It starts out very deep and dark, it's a very steep climb to the top, where it is still a couple hundred feet to the top. Will likely revisit the 1st and 2nd image later. Thanks for looking


----------



## Peeb (Jul 17, 2018)

I really dig #2.  Beautiful location.


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 17, 2018)

Peeb said:


> I really dig #2.  Beautiful location.



Thanks Peeb!! It was a great place to visit. There's a nice paved trail that winds up along the stream, crisscrossing many times with abundant places to get up close and personal. The only bad thing is at the falls itself, as you can't really get close because of the terrain. They've built a huge viewing deck, but that sort of kills the feel. 

@Derrel and @Gary A. I've thought a lot about what you both pointed out. Thank you @Derrel for the PM followup. One thing at issue with this location was WB it was a PITA, Lr WB sample tool was all over the place. What I settled on by eye in retrospect may not have been correct, so this edit is a substantial warming bump. This image did have a tremendous dynamic range from the sky at the top to the shadows at the base, in my efforts to "even out" that range, I likely crushed the shadows more then I intended. I was still seeing detail on my monitor, but web versions seem to loose borderline details. So this edit is an attempt to "boost" the midtones that Derrel talked about and to open up the shadows. I'll admit I'm torn as I lean toward the deep darkness of the first. Maybe a test print of the two would help me settle.




Helen trip07092018_691.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Jul 17, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > I really dig #2.  Beautiful location.
> ...



The re-edit is great


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2018)

The re-edit looks awesome on my iPhone!!!!!


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 17, 2018)

Derrel said:


> The re-edit looks awesome on my iPhone!!!!!



Thought about what you said on the tone curve. Used the alt key to slow down movement while I adjusted it. Very easy to go to much the wrong way.


----------

