Posted by Howard Cihak on November 17, 2011 at 6:27 AM
This is my first post at 1200 pixels.
Watkins Glen is a state park in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and one of the more impressive natural landscapes in the eastern U.S.
Posted by Howard Cihak on November 17, 2011 at 6:28 AM
O.K., so why didn't the image show up? I wasn't notified of any problem.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 17, 2011 at 8:39 AM
Howard - it looks like you uploaded only the larger version. The "View Larger Photo" link appears in the gray bar above your post as it should, but unless you also included a smaller version, nothing will be shown on this page.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 17, 2011 at 9:05 AM
What Rick said.
Also, bear in mind that vertical (portrait) photos should probably be less then 1200 pixels. On a 1900 X 1200 res monitor, I have to scroll to see the entire photo.
BTW, we require two files - one 720 and one (optional) 1200. Our experimentation with software that would automatically compress the 1200 version into 720 gave mixed results, and I am 100% confident that there would be complaints on how the photo was downsized by the software ("My 1200 version that I uploaded looks fine, but the 720 looks like crap. What gives?"). We conculded that for NPN, leaving that process to the person posting the photo was the best bet, allowing them to optimize each to their own standards.
Posted by Jack Garrett on November 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM
I agree that a 1200px vertical requires a lot of scrolling, may 800 on this for a vertical. The comp and exposure on this image are good but it seems to have a fair amount of digital noise in the upper third and the sharpness doesn't seem right to me. I think it's got potential with some adjustments.
I agree with Jack and I think its a very tough exposure to have pulled off as well as you have. Also my eye keeps going to the bottom edge by the water and wondering what's below. If it can be cropped so its all rock along that edge I think that would help frame the water, but since I don't know the area there may not be rock there!
Beautiful location, Howard, and the comp is quite nice. I do feel like both the wall on the left and the triangle of waterfall at the bottom could use more breathing room, they seem a little cut off at the edges. Is this a tight crop of a larger file? It seems like there's a lot of chromatic aberration visible, plus the digital noise Jack mentioned. If that's the case, it might be a little too tight a crop to get out of the file.
Posted by Doug Koepsel on November 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Seems like the top and bottom edges of the rock of the right face are showing a lot of CA. Also, if you could bring out some more detail in the water of the lower falls/wonder if a contrast/levels adjustment just in the water would help? Like Jackson mentioned, posssibly show more left wall, esp if there are some fall leaves. I like the upper falls, how the rock wall oscures part of it (mystery?) and the foilage above it.
Posted by Don George on November 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM
One of the more creative shots I've seen of this area. Lived there for years and know how difficult the lighting is.
Posted by Howard Cihak on November 19, 2011 at 3:18 AM
This is what I love about this forum ... lots of constructive ideas from friends.
A little background first for those who've never been to Watkins Glen. It's one of the principal landscape icons of the Eastern U.S. It was a huge tourist attraction in the late 1800's, even for Europeans. Unfortunately, this extremely narrow gorge can only be traveled by a series of man-made walkways and staircases that are always either on one side of the gorge or the other, but never both. This means shooting locations are very limited. That's why Don's comment means so much to me. I try to use a less than conventional approach when I shoot icons. It's nice to know someone thinks I succeeded to some extent.
It would be nice to show more of the left wall, because there is some greenery there. However, there's also immediately outside of the left edge of the image a massive stone staircase that immediately becomes the main focus in the image rather than the natural beauty I was trying to show.
I do agree about getting more detail in the lower falls, as well as showing where the water's going. Below is my 720px version of my do over, and I'll post a 1000px version in a separate thread.
Discussion
9 repliesWatkins Glen is a state park in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and one of the more impressive natural landscapes in the eastern U.S.
Also, bear in mind that vertical (portrait) photos should probably be less then 1200 pixels. On a 1900 X 1200 res monitor, I have to scroll to see the entire photo.
BTW, we require two files - one 720 and one (optional) 1200. Our experimentation with software that would automatically compress the 1200 version into 720 gave mixed results, and I am 100% confident that there would be complaints on how the photo was downsized by the software ("My 1200 version that I uploaded looks fine, but the 720 looks like crap. What gives?"). We conculded that for NPN, leaving that process to the person posting the photo was the best bet, allowing them to optimize each to their own standards.
A little background first for those who've never been to Watkins Glen. It's one of the principal landscape icons of the Eastern U.S. It was a huge tourist attraction in the late 1800's, even for Europeans. Unfortunately, this extremely narrow gorge can only be traveled by a series of man-made walkways and staircases that are always either on one side of the gorge or the other, but never both. This means shooting locations are very limited. That's why Don's comment means so much to me. I try to use a less than conventional approach when I shoot icons. It's nice to know someone thinks I succeeded to some extent.
It would be nice to show more of the left wall, because there is some greenery there. However, there's also immediately outside of the left edge of the image a massive stone staircase that immediately becomes the main focus in the image rather than the natural beauty I was trying to show.
I do agree about getting more detail in the lower falls, as well as showing where the water's going. Below is my 720px version of my do over, and I'll post a 1000px version in a separate thread.