[iceman (Mike)]

Originally Posted by obsidianphotos

Gorgeous light and beautiful scenery Mike Great work.

Thanks Greg, appreciate the feedback.

Originally Posted by leon

Certainly awesome imaging Mike, you have been a happy camper they are views to die for I reckon, well done.

Leon

Thanks Leon. I'd love to go back and visit one day but I don't think it will be for a very long time. Certainly some memories to remember.

Originally Posted by BC

Your images capture the colours excellently Mike. This brings back excellent memories of taking that ride off the edge in the helicopter with our 4 yr old annoyed that he had to sit in between his parents (instead of at the edge) in the back seat with no doors. It is a land all it's own up there.

Bruce

haha yeh we had problems at the Bungles with the helicopter ride when they tried to put one of us in the middle. The photographers wanted to be near the edge!

Originally Posted by colinmlegg

There's an old tradition in photo circles where you label your best shots as 'Ken Duncans'. 1st shot = 'Ken Duncan'!

Thanks Colin, spending that time with Ken certainly inspired me. I almost look at all shots as a panorama now

Originally Posted by Octane

Mike,

A couple of things that /I/ personally feel may improve your first image.

The first thing that grabs me is the saturation. It is very, very strong. If you tone it down by about 25%, or thereabouts, it will help immsensely. Perhaps even if it was just reduced in the red/orange channel.

Maybe it's because I'm personally a fan of lower contrast, it might look better with lesser contrast? Lowering the contrast will soften the waterfall and show a touch more detail, too.

Lastly, the sky seems to be tending to saturation. Is it possible to blend in a sky that is 1-2/3rds to 2 stops under? It looks incongruous to my eyes at the moment.

I know I'm being really, really harsh. Take it for what it's worth, though!

H

Thanks H, appreciate your feedback. I certainly bumped up the saturation intentionally - though I can't comment yet on the sky or contrast because I haven't viewed it on a calibrated monitor. My laptop is far from calibrated I'm sure but for the sky I had already masked in a version that I underexposed 2 stops. If I underexpose any more, the trees themselves become hard to mask in without looking unnatural.

I was going for a bold contrasty look specifically for printing but I won't know for sure how it'll look until I do a test print. I'm looking at my work differently now and it'll take me a few goes to find the rhythm of processing for print.

Appreciate all critique so thanks for that.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Interesting how different people prefer different looks.

I personally like as it is but then I do tend to prefer strong colours (to my processing disadvantage at times that I know I have to rein in).

Your other shots have shown a similar style of presentation. Its a bit of a Mike Salway signature look.

Looking at it again I can see what Humi is referring to but I personally like the look of the sky as it gives that desert WA type feel to it. The rocks are probably pretty harsh in colour in reality, are they or did you up the sat?

I like the teal green of the water.

One things for sure your 5D2 is taking super sharp shots. Also your lens/autofocus is performing really well.

Greg.

Thanks for the feedback, Greg. Appreciate the kind words. I do tend to like a very saturated look and I'm sure some of my shots are close to being 'too' far, but I do like the bold colours and contrast.

Those oranges in the rocks were certainly very bold at sunset - maybe not so much at that time of the morning but the bright oranges and teale water is certainly something I remember of my time there.

I'm *so* happy with the 5D Mk II. I don't even want to pull out the 40D now, even though I was so happy with it when it was all I had. Once you've gone full-frame, it's almost impossible to go back.


Thanks again for your feedback.