Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Cottonwoods Redux

Discussion

14 replies
Posted by Rick Dunn on August 1, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Cottonwoods Redux
In the "yea or nay" post from last week, I had posted two versions of this scene - the first was an experiment-in-progress - an "artistic" motion-blur rendering; the second was the largely untouched, RAW file posted only for reference to the first.

Surprisingly (to me) folks liked the second, despite the lack of processing and resulting obvious flaws. Most notably, the grasses were way too bright - a byproduct of applying a rudimentary orton effect.

So, I went back to the RAW .nef file, worked it up, and here's the result. Does it work for you?
Posted by Stan Rose on August 1, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Well, wasnt around to chime in on your first post, but looking back i actually prefer your artsy version, its got a nice psyhedelic feel to it. But your redux is quite nice too, just different, subdued rather than electric. My preference would depend on the time of day and what i've been drinking beforehand.
Posted by Todd Caudle on August 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I thought the motion blur version was really nice. But I also like this. Nice that we don't really have to chose, and we can just like 'em both.
Posted by Ken Wyatt on August 2, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Put this grass in the first version and give me back the abstract! :biggrin:

Ken
Posted by Roger Rouch on August 2, 2008 at 8:28 AM
I really like this. I agree that's a a bit of personal preference to compare against the others, but this is my favorite. I think this would make a really nice print on some art paper.
Posted by Dan Walters on August 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Great image! Very abstract and I really like the colors.
Posted by Don Grall on August 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I really like this one a bunch, but I also liked the PS'd version as well.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on August 2, 2008 at 5:01 PM
This has a beautiful feel to it. The panning abstract is fun, but I think this one has more general appeal. Print it on something soft. I'd love to see a print of it. You are coming to the next shindig right :wink: ?
Posted by George Stocking on August 3, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I vote for the artsy version...
Posted by Jeff Hackett on August 3, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I agree with Ken, put this grass in the first one and I'll take the abstract. This one is very nice also.
Posted by Dave Showalter` on August 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM
This image is so outstanding - there always room for several interpretations. The golden glow is amazing!
Posted by Laurent Baig on August 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
This has such a soft "painted" quality about it. The light is just phenomenal. I love when photographs don't look like photographs simply because of the quality of light, and this is one of those. Outstanding, Rick. I've I had money, I'd buy a print of this. I also like the almost symmetry between left and right half
Posted by John Mumaw on August 4, 2008 at 8:36 PM
I agree with Laurent about the 'painterly' quality that this one already possesses.
I like this one a lot...the bare tree in the middle makes a wonderful break.

Are those steel fence posts I see?
Posted by Rick Dunn on August 5, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Thanks for the comments everyone - very much appreciated. I think the grasses on the blurred shot need to be reigned in a little, but for me, these grasses would be too literal for that shot. Though as Dave said - lots of possible interpretations. I've printed both on Hahnemuhle Photorag and both look pretty darn nice!

John - yep, those are fence posts. I cloned out the more obvious ones in the blurred shot, but intentionally left them in here. They're subtle, but I like their contribution to the rural, pastoral feel.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 5, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I like them both, but I prefer the first version.