Author Topic: Iridescent Death- Image comparison  (Read 1239 times)

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« on: July 22, 2018, 01:02:47 »
I like the iridescent green tint to the water, which is pretty much how it came out of the camera, very little manipulation of the water color on my part. If you would, please give me your thoughts on the two images. In the first image, I made adjustments in Lightroom, then ran the image through the detail enhancer filter in Nik, then through the noise reduction program in Nik. In the second image, I  made no adjustments, ran the image through the noise reduction program, then through the detail enhancer, then made adjustments in Lightroom, I like the second image better, even though it appears slightly noisier to me. The raw material was not the best to work with, an image from my D7000 when it was set for birds, auto ISO is 3200, exposure time 1/2000 sec. at f/7.1. I was using the 70-200 f/2.8 lens with a 1.7 teleconverter attached. I'm most interested in whether you think the order of processing affected the finished product, and if so, which image you like best.

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2018, 15:31:55 »
Here is a jpeg of the raw image, no adjustments applied:

armando_m

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
  • Guadalajara México
    • http://armando-m.smugmug.com/
Re: Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2018, 17:26:45 »
Is this shot in the wild ?

A  number of years ago I went to Florida to a place called Viera wetlands, the signs on the shore indicating to be careful with the alligators were not very encouraging, I stayed inside the car
Armando Morales
D800, Nikon 1 V1, Fuji X-T3

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2018, 17:48:18 »
Armando I was a long distance away, 70-200mm lens at 200mm, 1:5 crop factor body and 1.7 teleconverter, effectively 510mm, and then the image presented is a significant crop from a larger image, so I was in no danger. That said, I won’t get too close to the shore, I’m always at least 10 feet back from the water, and if there is a dock or deck to stand on, I’ll use it. in this case, I was on a deck in a semi-wild situation, which describes a lot of Florida.

I view alligators as being much less dangerous than either Nile or saltwater crocodiles. That said, they still deserve a healthy measure of respect. In the United States, they’ve killed roughly 20 people in the last 18 years, so one’s chances of getting killed are pretty remote. But, it was probably scant consolation to the people killed that they died of a statistically rare cause of death.  I don’t swim in lakes or rivers, I stay back from the bank. I view any body of water larger than a puddle as potential habitat and am appropriately cautious. We do have crocodiles in the extreme Southern part of Florida. I’ve seen them in the Everglades National Park. But their habitat is restricted to the far south, which makes me quite happy.

I think as time goes by there will be more frequent attacks as both the population of gators and of humans increases.

Which image do you like best?

armando_m

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 3528
  • Guadalajara México
    • http://armando-m.smugmug.com/
Re: Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2018, 23:47:48 »
I like the first image as more detail is visible in the shadows
Armando Morales
D800, Nikon 1 V1, Fuji X-T3

ArthurDent

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 704
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Iridescent Death- Image comparison
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2018, 00:00:28 »
I like the first image as more detail is visible in the shadows

Thanks, I believe I can open up the shadows in the second photo and still retain the detail of the second photo. I’ll give that a try.