Water and post processing

Exposure:
0.001 sec (1/1600)Aperture:f/5.6Focal Length:32 mmISO Speed:400

CPL used

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

The first one is a dramatic shot. However, the buildings are very underexposed. HDR would have helped to keep the dramatic detail in the water and sky, while opening up the buildings and mountain.

I'm not wild about the composition of the second one.

Played around with the first one a little:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

The sky and the highlights of the river look blown out on my monitor. Do you use levels on the entire image? In my attempt, I selected the buildings and trees and applied levels to them. You'll see an artifact in the water just past the first bridge. With care, I would have taken care of it.

There must have been quite a bit of tonal depth in the original. I was surprised at the result.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yeah I played with it quite a bit to get the water to look so vibrant. Unfortunately the result sacrificed the buildings etc. Thanks for trying some edits, I'll see if I can scale back the tone contrast and get things evened out more.

hmm ... does this smack of the limitations of digital over film?

I'm no film expert, but it does tend to have a greater range over even a 30D.

The water is nicely exposed, however, as indicated by other posters, the sky is way out. Maybe a HDR or ND Grad may have helped some?

wayne_eddy wrote in post #5617411
hmm ... does this smack of the limitations of digital over film?

Limitations? What limitations? I've got a Post Processor
Film is passe.