Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Opinions wanted - which one better


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 25 November 2004 - 10:01 AM

I shot this shark image in RAW and I've been playing with the WB during conversion.

1

Posted Image

2

Posted Image

Larry
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200

#2 randapex

randapex

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lynnwood, Washington USA

Posted 25 November 2004 - 12:34 PM

#1 for me. I prefer the more silvery color in the shark. The reef colors also look warmer. Although #2 the water color is better.

Rand
Rand McMeins
Nikon D2X. Subal ND2. 2 Inon Z220S

Greenwaterimages

#3 james

james

    The Engineer

  • Super Mod
  • 9969 posts
  • Location:Houston TX

Posted 25 November 2004 - 01:28 PM

1 is warmer and flash shadows don't look so harsh (no diffuser, right?). Second shot also has more blue-green ambient light halos.

Cheers
James
Canon 1DsMkIII - Seacam Housing
Dual Ikelite Strobes
Photo site - www.reefpix.org

#4 kdietz

kdietz

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 25 November 2004 - 07:02 PM

#1 for better shark colors....I also think the water is better in #2...

Karl
Karl Dietz...Nikon D200...Ikelite iTTL housing...10.5mm...15mm FE...12-24mm...17-35mm...60mm micro...105mm micro...dual DS-200's
www.kdietz.com

#5 derway

derway

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1136 posts
  • Location:Pasadena CA

Posted 25 November 2004 - 09:28 PM

These are the same shot, right, just converted differently?

I like the 1st one much more. But I think it might be even better just a little less warm - it would look more underwater-ish. If your convesion software allows setting white balance, by clicking on points in the image, try clicking on parts of the shark, and see how it comes out...

Don
Don Erway
http://picasaweb.google.com/onederway/
http://www.pbase.com/derway

nikon n90s/ikelite housing/twin SS-200 canon G2/ikelite/DS-50/optical TTL slave
sony V3/ikelite/DS-51/Heinrich DA2 slave

#6 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 25 November 2004 - 10:52 PM

Thanks for the input. I took your advice and went back to the digital darkroom. Here's my final effort. Not a big difference from #1 but I think the blue is better while retaining the warm foreground. What do you think.

Posted Image

Larry
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200

#7 kdietz

kdietz

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth, Texas

Posted 25 November 2004 - 10:57 PM

I wish it was mine :)

Karl
Karl Dietz...Nikon D200...Ikelite iTTL housing...10.5mm...15mm FE...12-24mm...17-35mm...60mm micro...105mm micro...dual DS-200's
www.kdietz.com

#8 Alex_Mustard

Alex_Mustard

    The Doctor

  • Super Mod
  • 8376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough

Posted 26 November 2004 - 12:49 AM

Larry, you are starting with such a nice shot that all the versions are perfectly acceptable. And I am sure all versions would be published and therefore none are really wrong.

I still find the reef a little bit too warm in the third version. Just because we can warm up colours underwater it doesn't mean we have to. Underwater colours are naturally cool and I don't have a problem with that. If you are still enjoying experimenting, try a slightly cooler look, but with a bit more saturation to keep that rope sponge looking great and a bit more contrast, which will help the shark.

Alex

Alexander Mustard - www.amustard.com - www.magic-filters.com
Nikon D4 (Subal housing). Nikon D7100 (Subal housing). Olympus EPL-5 (Nauticam housing).


#9 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 26 November 2004 - 06:25 AM

This is so much fun. To think, only a year ago I was shooting film. I would get my boxes of 36 and quickly cull the crap. The keepers would be briefly admired ( didn't want to expose them to too much light or they begin to fade) and stored. Now with RAW image files I can create endless versions while retaining the original negative. Who knew! This is way more fun than spending Black Friday at the mall.

At Alex's suggestion I have given it one more try. This is closer to the WB of #2 but I have pumped up the red saturation a bit and tried to eliminate some of the shadows and halos that that James pointed out.

Posted Image
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200

#10 SeaDogDiver

SeaDogDiver

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL USA

Posted 24 December 2004 - 01:37 PM

I really like the last version! I think it strikes a good balance. Where was it taken?

Sieg

#11 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 24 December 2004 - 02:52 PM

The shot was taken somewhere on the Little Bahama Bank at a reef called Jack Jungle. I was diving from the Shearwater.
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200

#12 scubamarli

scubamarli

    Great White

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1177 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New Westminster, B.C. Canada

Posted 31 December 2004 - 12:45 AM

Well,
Sorry this took so long but the final version looks too fake, in the water colour. I wish I had ever seen water that blue. Sometimes less is more. I prefer the earlier adjustments, as they look believable.
Cheers,
Marli
Marli Wakeling

www.marliwakeling.com
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together. ~Carl Zwanzig

#13 Kelpfish

Kelpfish

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1602 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 31 December 2004 - 07:10 AM

Hi Larry,

If it were my shot, I'd do only minor tweak in raw, then pull it in to PS and do a magnetic lasso around the shark, select inverse and adjust the background. Then select inverse again and adjust the shark. Feather maybe 3 pixels worth and you might have a real keeper, not that it isn't already a keeper :D
I would do a shadow-highlight to the shark and attain more highlights in the shark, showing a tad more detail.

Joe

#14 kathymm

kathymm

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Location:San Jose, California USA

Posted 31 December 2004 - 10:15 AM

Great shot Larry!

I personally like the first version best. In the second version you lose something in the white areas on the bottom of the shark and the red sponge in the foreground is too... The final version keeps the detail in the shark but I have to agree with Marli, it's too contrasty, a bit fake looking.

You took an excellent image to begin with, I hope I can shoot one as good someday.

Kathy
http://www.divermaiden.com
Nikon D300 with 60 mm & 16 mm lens, SEA&SEA Housing, Sea&Sea YS110 Strobes

#15 Lionfish43

Lionfish43

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Location:Dover, NH USA

Posted 31 December 2004 - 11:56 AM

Thanks for the interest and all the great suggestions.

When I originally posted this thread I was preparing the image to enter in a couple of photo contests. In addition to posting it here, I also ran the image by a number of non-divers. Kind of an impromptu focus group (I do that alot when selecting images for a contest.) The interesting thing about it was that most of the non-divers prefered image #2 while members here seemed to like that one the least. I'm not sure what that says about our perception as u/w photographers but those were the results.

I didn't end up using any of the versions exactly as presented here. The one I selected was something in between #2 and #4. I'd show it to you but my server space is full for the moment.

Happy New Years,
Larry
Larry Oberlander My Webpage
Nikon D200, Aquatica AD200