Aquae Vitae - Panther Creek Falls, WA

I really enjoy this type of artistic discussion.   In this version, the contrast really does pop!  I like it.  These slight adjustment do lend a different feel to the location.   It isn't a good or bad thing or right or wrong.  It's the power of art.   

Both visions of this scene are equally pleasing in my book.  Just in different ways.  (very nice take on it btw!)

Everytime I take a photo, a couple of major influences occupy space in my brain.  The first is (don't laugh)  Bob Ross.  As artist we have the power to tell the story we want to tell with our art.   We can move people to place of anxiety with grit, desaturation and high contrast.  Or we can move them to a place of serene dreaminess with a soft glow and saturated colors, or any place along the informative and emotional spectrum we as artist choose.   

I'm pretty sure you guys are beginning to notice that I'm heavily influenced by the painters of the Romantic Era.   I like to enhance certain aspects of landscapes to inspire a sense of grandiosity and emotion.  Man being made to feel small when against the vastness of nature.   I'm not really one for the full on sky replacements and such (not that i'm opposed to it in principle, it's just me).   But, I do like to enhance what is there in order to convey the "feeling" I felt at the time I took the photo.

In the case of this location, it was all that mist, water and lots and lots of greeeeen.   While technically, the rocks are grey when viewed under neutral lighting.   The light in this majestic amphitheater was indeed tinting everything in wonderful shades of green and yellow.    I of course, chose to play that up in my rendition.

I have a few raw files from the Lower Panther Creek Falls that I'm not happy with my composition on but, maybe it would be fun to put them up for a photo processing challenge to continue this discourse, if you guys are up for that sort of thing.  I'm a huge fan of these types of discussions, as I'm sure you can tell by my long arsed reply.  (gettin' old i guess)

[/quote]

garyrhook wrote: Re: Randy's rendition (say that three times fast...)

So I'll back up and ask, what's the subject of this image?

Thanks!  It is quite the chaotic place.   My intention was that the waterfall was the subject.   I sorta thought I did pretty well at filling up quite a bit of the frame with it but, still give it context.   I'm totally open to compositional feedback though.   Because I assure you, I AM returning to this beauty of a location again    And pointers are always welcome. 
 

It sure is refreshing to run into another poster than is open to these type of discussions. I always welcome edits and critiques on my images. I may not agree with them all, but they are welcome. We all see things differently. It would be horribly boring if we didn't. The adjustments I made were rather small but they did have a surprising impact. I almost added back some mist to the image that my micro contrast adjustment took out. I wasn't going for reducing the mist but that was the result. Surprising to some, it was not due to a heavy dose of the Dehaze slider. Love the image. I feel the subject is the beauty, color and the feel of the image. The subject is clear in my mind. Don't know what Hook had in mind but would be curious to know.....or maybe he's been out in that western sun too long. Sorry, Gary.  

spudalicious wrote: After contrast adjustments, this has about a +10 vibrance adjustment.

Vibrance does not exist in my converter and I never use contrast,
sharpening, saturation etc.

DRL, recovery when needed, tonal taming, and WB is about all I do.

spudalicious wrote:  It's just my artistic choice.

Absolutely legitimate.

Shadowfixer1 wrote: It sure is refreshing to run into another poster than is open to these type of discussions. I always welcome edits and critiques on my images. I may not agree with them all, but they are welcome. We all see things differently. It would be horribly boring if we didn't. The adjustments I made were rather small but they did have a surprising impact. I almost added back some mist to the image that my micro contrast adjustment took out. I wasn't going for reducing the mist but that was the result. Surprising to some, it was not due to a heavy dose of the Dehaze slider. Love the image. I feel the subject is the beauty, color and the feel of the image. The subject is clear in my mind. Don't know what Hook had in mind but would be curious to know.....or maybe he's been out in that western sun too long. Sorry, Gary.  

This is the kind of thing we talk about in the photography club I started. We stay away from edits, generally, other than crops. But anything else in the image is fair game. And I love hearing others' ideas when there's no agenda. Just sharing perspective.

But the question that keeps popping up is, "what is the subject"? And that's an important question. So I thought I'd ask.

I used the term "dehaze" in a general sense, but a clarity change could have been just as relevant. It was the microcontrast that was different in the edit, and I prefer the haziness from the moisture in the air. To me, the subject is the place, the mood, and the light, not the waterfall. As such, (for me) pushing detail draws one's focus to specific things, and takes attention off of the "place". And therefore away from the subject. That said, I might leave the additional contrast on the log in the foreground, but I'd perhaps reduce microcontrast in the water.

Can't blame the sun; I just try to stay out of it.

garyrhook wrote:
But the question that keeps popping up is, "what is the subject"? And that's an important question. So I thought I'd ask.

To me, the subject is the place, the mood, and the light, not the waterfall.

This makes perfect sense to me, thanks for the clarification.   I agree, that big question of "what is this whole scene about?"  is something that needs to be considered.   Sometimes I perceive things too literally     The thing I think is so cool, and is evidenced in this thread is...  that question can be answered differently by the photographer and every individual that views the photograph. 

spudalicious wrote: I agree, that big question of "what is this whole scene about?"  is something that needs to be considered.   Sometimes I perceive things too literally

I'm the king of literal; I tend to see things very graphically. I have a lot to learn. Part of why I wanted to start a meetup.