Otter Creek. Which do you like better?

[mjs1973]

Hi Everyone,

It's been a while since I visited this site. It's good to see many familiar names are still very active here! I'm hoping to get some opinions on these two versions of the same image. Which do you like better, and if it's not too much to ask, can you please tell me why you like one over the other?





These are 4 minute exposure thanks to a B+W 10 stop ND filter.

[hminx]

Hi Mike
I like the colours of the second shot but the blurry affect makes it a little hard on the eyes. I also have an issue with the composition. I would have liked you to have taken a couple of steps to the right so the foreground water fall isn't partially concealed by that rock and then the two falls been so central and lined up.

[mjs1973]

Thanks for the feedback!

[Photo-John]

They both look a bit red to me, although I am looking at them on an uncalibrated monitor. Even so, I think they look a bit pink. As for which one I like better - definitely the one with no effect applied. I'm not a big fan of effects on photos. And if you are going to use them, I think they'd better add some meaning. In this case, I don't see any reason to mess with the original image. I think it's well-done with a great scene and a solid composition. Why mess that up by making it all blurry?

Just curious - can you tell me why you were considering applying the Orton Effect - or whatever it is? What were you trying to convey with the manipulation? Analyzing your motivation might help you to better understand the goal and make the original photo stronger the next time you try it.

[mjs1973]

Thanks for your feedback John. The red/pink color cast is a result of the B+W 10 stop ND filter I used. Sometimes I like the color cast, others I don't. I think on this one I tried to remove it but didn't quite get it all.

I'll be honest with you, I really didn't have much of a reason for applying the Orton Effect to the image. I like the original, but maybe deep down I felt it was missing something so I applied the effect in hopes of making more out of the image than what was there and wanted some other opinions.

[Photo-John]

I'll be honest with you, I really didn't have much of a reason for applying the Orton Effect to the image. I like the original, but maybe deep down I felt it was missing something so I applied the effect in hopes of making more out of the image than what was there and wanted some other opinions.

I understand completely. I now always question any urge to run effects on my photos - specifically because I am suspicious that it means they aren't strong enough to stand on their own. I think this photo is pretty good on its own, though. It's not the greatest creek photo ever. But it's nice enough.

[Greg McCary]

I like the second one. The first one almost looks to sharp. I also think it has a little more movement captured in the water. You might clone the little twig in the middle so it doesn't obstruct the water. Simple it up some.

[Daniel Algolux]

First one for me. The blur works with the water (1st), but it kind of looks "cheap" (no offence!) when it's the whole pic.

[AAGP]

I actually really like both photos. I think the Orton effect really makes the colours brighter and richer which drew my eyes to it first. The sharper more detailed image on the top makes the photo interesting and realistic.

[GB1]

Mike,

Very interesting, and congrats on the sticky. The colors seem surreal and that gives them an enchanted feeling, like we're looking at a scene from Oz. The compositions are relatively busy but I think that works quite well here - everything balances because the blur forces you to look at it, defining a subject in each. I also like how the sitting water is the main stage so to speak, and the surrounding land frames it in.

The ND worked here. I have a variable ND filter but get a lot of distortion/noise on my Nikon D700 when I make it pretty dark. Not sure what's up w/ that.

G

[mjs1973]

Thanks for all of your thoughts and feedback everyone! And thanks for the feature John.