Poll for versions of Tim Diggers Truuk photo.

[Tim Digger]

OK Here are my edit produced as a jpeg 1000pixels widest 250pixel/cm and the original as the same export. For those interested 1/30th ISO800 f6.3 11mm Tokina 10-17 (11mm to avoid vignette) No flash.
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/so%20Stuff/poll1-1282.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/so%20Stuff/poll1-1282.jpg.html)


AND the original as the same quality jpeg
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/so%20Stuff/pollOriginal-1282.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/so%20Stuff/pollOriginal-1282.jpg.html)


.


My edit of Tim's shot, took me about 6 seconds.
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/petebalkan/Tims%20wreck-1282.jpg (http://s298.photobucket.com/user/petebalkan/media/Tims%20wreck-1282.jpg.html)

[Darren A]

First one looks blurry to me, second one looks good - nice and sharp. Third one looks over exposed.

Second one is my favourite.

[Tim Digger]

So poll away Really interested in result I try to do an edit on my pics(those I think worth while) within 24 hours this one was. I hope my memory of being there and the cameras raw file combine to produce something like what I PERCIEVED.

[Mikael]

Very subjective but I remember thinking when I saw the Tim's edit and the original in the other thread wouldn't it be nice to have the reds in the lower part of the image while retaining the blueish colour where the light shines through from above. Pete seems to have done this so that's how I voted.

I like Tim's edit too but the light shinning through the upper most hole in the shot is glared out (if that description makes sense?).

[Tim Digger]

I like Tim's edit too but the light shinning through the upper most hole in the shot is glared out (if that description makes sense?).
I see what you mean, but it is over exposed on all versions and is the part of the shot that is over exposed in the original to the extent of being uncorrectable, my version makes this very obvious but I manage to correct the overexposure in the other windows, maybe this is wrong, Pete does not do this and maybe produces a more consistent look of overhead lighting, this may be what people expect to see.

[Jen - Winged Blob]

I like Tim's edit. It's brought out a bit of extra detail, but still retains the 'tunnel' feel, so that I'm following the picture through to the diver. With Pete's, there's more 'going on' because the exposure has highlighted more, but I find this a bit distracting. It presents all the picture at once to my gaze, rather than giving me the feel of moving through it as Tim's does.

[Pete Bullen]

I liked Tim's initial edit but felt there was room for more detail in the shadows which I "brought up" in my edit.

[Darren A]

I must be blind, I thought the original was best.

Maybe people have lost sight of what the original image was supposed to look like, and have now moved into criticing the skill of processing of an image rather than the image itself?

[Tunicates]

Pete's edit wins this for me. I think he's dialled up the whites a lot more, pushed the exposure and contrast a tad and dialled in a bit more black. That's probably it.

The effect is to strongly bring out a nice diagonal on the right hand bottom of the passageway that leads the eye into the image to the diver, who otherwise is a bit lost. Nicely done.

[Tunicates]

So poll away Really interested in result I try to do an edit on my pics(those I think worth while) within 24 hours this one was. I hope my memory of being there and the cameras raw file combine to produce something like what I PERCIEVED.

I try not to edit anything straight away. The best ones of a trip I'll tweak a bit so as to have something to show, but I find it's often better to leave things for at least a month, preferably three. That way I come at each image with more emotional detachment, and can 'see' it for what it is, including it's best and or possibilities.

Someone once told me that everyone loves their own baby. That's true of any photograph you've just taken that you like a bit. We fall in love with them and can't see their faults, which is often (in the case of a photo) to it's detriment.

[samkin]

I like both edits but Pete's resonates more with me. I think a lot of that is down to the additional colours that come out in that one.
I don't loose the feeling of the tunnel in Pete's but can see why some do.
I don't use strobes and I do really like being able to bring a bit of colour out even if it wasn't there as much to the eye at the time.

A confession, I've been taught by Pete and his approach to using lightroom fits with my thoughts on aesthetic.
I also have very tired eyes and am using a phone not a computer to view this.

[AndrewRawlingson]

I went for Tim's edit. Although Pete's edit certainly adds something, it looks too over-processed for my liking. I may be alone in thinking the photo would be better without the diver. A diver's arse does not make for a pretty photo*.






*Cue someone posting a photo of a fit young lady wearing a g-string, probably taken with a GoPro in 1 metre of water in tropical conditions.

[Tim Digger]

I went for Tim's edit. Although Pete's edit certainly adds something, it looks too over-processed for my liking. I may be alone in thinking the photo would be better without the diver. A diver's arse does not make for a pretty photo*.
*Cue someone posting a photo of a fit young lady wearing a g-string, probably taken with a GoPro in 1 metre of water in tropical conditions.

While I agree that butt shots as our American friends call them often do not work especially with fish, I think this is how most divers see a wreck either as leader with no one in front or following someone so I feel the shot would look wrong with a diver coming towards me. As for no diver it might work as a pair of shots on a loop alternating but I think it would be not as good without. Personal taste though. Seems more or less 50 ;50 except for those few who like the original.
Question to those who prefer the original is it that the colour balance is more as you expect or is it that you like the near mono chrome, do you like black and white? Or do you just believe that what the camera sees is whats there and that's what I want to see, I don't agree with that but if your happy with the idea so be it. Quite interested in why you prefer it as I don't like it.
Although I do like to edit as soon as possible I do with some shots that I like for composition or subject, start over at home weeks or months later. Lightroom makes it easy to create a Virtual copy and do this separately.

[Jen - Winged Blob]

I went for Tim's edit. Although Pete's edit certainly adds something, it looks too over-processed for my liking. I may be alone in thinking the photo would be better without the diver. A diver's arse does not make for a pretty photo*.






*Cue someone posting a photo of a fit young lady wearing a g-string, probably taken with a GoPro in 1 metre of water in tropical conditions.

My avatar not quite the sort of thing you had in mind? :D

[jamesp]

Stuck between Tims edit and Petes edit.

Tims has a loss of focus in the immediate foreground, but your eye is drawn to the diver (where as the original shot my eye was drawn to the large dark patch to the left!), Pete seems to have avoided that and the overhead lighting is more "defined".

For balance my dry photography is crap, underwater worse.

Actually, if I scroll Tims edit up to remove the first overhead light source, I prefer that!

[Tim Digger]

Yes I think I agree its better cropped as the picture is closer to the proportions of the corridor. Thanks for that usually I am quite keen on appropriate cropping but missed that one.
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/Micronesia/pollOmore-1282.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/Micronesia/pollOmore-1282.jpg.html)

[jamesp]

Yes I think I agree its better cropped as the picture is closer to the proportions of the corridor. Thanks for that usually I am quite keen on appropriate cropping but missed that one.
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/Micronesia/pollOmore-1282.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/Micronesia/pollOmore-1282.jpg.html)


That one!

[PhilPage]

I like the original :)

[Firefly]

My preference is Pete's lighter, brighter with more colour and I agree on cropping to take the glare off the top section. Good Poll :y:

[matt]

Is the original a RAW export or a camara jpg?

[Tim Digger]

Is the original a RAW export or a camara jpg?

The "original" was taken on a Nikon as a NEF imported into Lightroom 3.6 and exported as a resized jpeg with no other changes.

[matt]

The "original" was taken on a Nikon as a NEF imported into Lightroom 3.6 and exported as a resized jpeg with no other changes.

Pity you don't have the Nikon jpg, I always shoot RAW+JPG (but not underwater as the camera would get wet) ;-)

[Allan Carr]

I prefer Tim's cropped version. It retains the feel of an underwater shot whereas Pete's version looks a bit too clinical. I like U/W photos to retain the atmosphere of being U/W and not look like pseudo surface photos but perhaps I'm just just odd that way.

[SimonK]

Tims cropped version. For me the main point of interest of that part of the wreck is the pile of periscopes. In Pete's version my eye is drawn away from that to a patch of squidge in the foreground. Would be better if the diver was facing the camera.

[Pete Bullen]

Is the original a RAW export or a camara jpg?

RAW (Nikon RAW)

[matt]

RAW (Nikon RAW)

I was interested if the camera-jpg was better or not. Often they are very good. Clever programmers.

[Tim Digger]

I was interested if the camera-jpg was better or not. Often they are very good. Clever programmers.
No sorry no camera jpeg can't be ar**ed cuttering up my laptop with extra images. Just had to have a heavy delete session after transfers to desk top and backup. But yes my missus will have nothing to do with RAW and still uses an out of date Photoshop elements for all her processing. Since she has an Olympus OM5 mirrorless and is mainly interested in macro, at which due to patience she is a better photographer than me, it doesn't seem to matter. This is her's not mine, sitting there at 32m for 5mins waiting her turn.
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/Micronesia/Betsy_Denise.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/Micronesia/Betsy_Denise.jpg.html)
While I waited at 24m and got this.
http://i1127.photobucket.com/albums/l625/TimDigger/Micronesia/Palau-0506.jpg (http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/TimDigger/media/Micronesia/Palau-0506.jpg.html)
We had a good 30 min dive after that, these were Palau not Chuuk, One of the Blue holes near Blue corner.