Which one... Waterfall processing

I've posted this first photo in another post and received some positive comments. I really do like this shot, however, I think it's a bit overprocessed. I used a preset filter in Aurora HDR and made some slight adjustments.. Then I got to thinking... Can I process myself and get a more realistic image?

Preset in Aurora HDR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Psx6​1q

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2aeN​sov

I like the second one better.

For me, it has a little more "softness" to it, which shouldn't be misconstrued as "less sharp".

I like the density of #2 best.

plantastic wrote in post #18720431
I like the second one better.

For me, it has a little more "softness" to it, which shouldn't be misconstrued as "less sharp".

Thanks.. i actuslly agree. The "softness" seems to be more natural.

Thanks.

I'm in favour of the second one too.

It's number 2 for me

I like the shadows in the first one (the HDR pulled out more detail in the shadows), but the rest of it I like more in the second one. The issue for me is more that the background is so bright, it immediately draws my eyes to that area. If that could be pulled down a bit more, I think it would be a stronger photo.

paul3221 wrote in post #18720667
I like the shadows in the first one (the HDR pulled out more detail in the shadows), but the rest of it I like more in the second one. The issue for me is more that the background is so bright, it immediately draws my eyes to that area. If that could be pulled down a bit more, I think it would be a stronger photo.

Agreed, I’d also crop the right and bottom sides to remove the bright highlighted bit of rock at the bottom

Highlights in #1 appear to high. #2 is much more pleasing.

It's really interesting to get everyone's take on this. Thank you very much for all the suggestions, opinions, etc. As I thought would be the case, there's a wide variety of opinions.

Yes - the highlights are stronger in #1, and I like the more subdued highlights of #2. I like the detail in the leaves across the stream in #1, but #2 was more realistic due to being under the canopy of the trees.

Either way, they both have their own positives and negatives. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and as long as everyone enjoys a little of both, then I guess the photo and processing (both styles) are a success.

Thanks again everyone.

Jamey

But, if you were to hang one on *your* wall, which one would it be? I'd take #2, as most other folks seem to like the best. Which do you, the photographer, see being the "best" image? They may both be successes, but only one is the best.

Number 2 for me as well.

Intheswamp wrote in post #18770065
But, if you were to hang one on *your* wall, which one would it be? I'd take #2, as most other folks seem to like the best. Which do you, the photographer, see being the "best" image? They may both be successes, but only one is the best.

I agree with most.... I lean towards #2 as the photographer. I like the details in #1, but when you're in the woods you often get deeper shadows depending on your position and the position of subject and sun. 2 seems more realistic IMO.

Thanks for the comments.

The dynamic range found beneath a forest canopy is very broad, so much so that the human eye can't take it all in, much less a camera sensor. It seems to me that to include all the shadow and highlight details would tend to create a surreal image. To get the exposures correct for either end of the range we'd have to get close to that area of the subject...move into the highlight areas or shadow areas which would create a smaller DR. As it is with your total scene...our brain compensates and "sees" what it expects to see...a "normal" scene. Now, how is that for making something as clear as mud?

Nice scene, btw.