Middle Falls

Aaron Macomber

Aaron Macomber

Well-Known Member
I’ve been sifting through more or less every image I’ve ever taken seeing whats there,(725GB ) and thinning the herd. I ran across this image that I took in 2005. I’m glad I had the RAW file because the processing I did on it back then was a mile past horrible. I like this shot and believe it or not, I rememeber the hike :) Though my skills at the time aren’t reflected in this photograph, I managed to trip and fall into a pretty technically satisfying image I think

Canon 20D, 17-40mm @ 40mm, iso 100 for .6 seconds

I dont think I’ve ever been more proud of a lens than I was of that 17-40, my first L lens.

 
Sunny Sra

Sunny Sra

Well-Known Member
Aaron,
This is a fine shot! Glad you are going through the old stuff and reprocessing. The 17-40 was one of my first lenses after the 75-300 kit lens that came with the D60 (don't confuse with 60D ). Like how you processed this
 
AlanLichty

AlanLichty

Moderator
Silver Falls State Park? Nice view of those falls.

One thing to keep in mind as you look at your old processing is just how much better our processing software has gotten during those years. I have found that more than a few shots dating back to that era look much better now simply because we can do so much more with RAW anymore. I can't think of any reason to archive my images in jpeg format unless the camera can't export RAW.
 
Aaron Macomber

Aaron Macomber

Well-Known Member
Sunny Sra said:
Aaron,
This is a fine shot! Glad you are going through the old stuff and reprocessing. The 17-40 was one of my first lenses after the 75-300 kit lens that came with the D60 (don't confuse with 60D ). Like how you processed this
Click to expand...
Thanks! the image sifting is mostly fun, I’ve since learned to cull during the import process thankfully, especially now with the drive-crushing 5DSr


AlanLichty said:
Silver Falls State Park? Nice view of those falls.

One thing to keep in mind as you look at your old processing is just how much better our processing software has gotten during those years. I have found that more than a few shots dating back to that era look much better now simply because we can do so much more with RAW anymore. I can't think of any reason to archive my images in jpeg format unless the camera can't export RAW. \
Click to expand...
Thats a good point Alan, If I remember right it was either CS or CS2 and a very rudimentary version of ACR. Now I dont use Adobe at all, and never will again. On1 is an amazing piece of software, made right here in Portland. I also use affinity from time to time as well, particularly with my iPad.
 
JimFox

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
Hey Aaron, it’s Posts and photos like this one from you that warm my heart that you are back and active with us. :)

This has such a great look to it, I am glad that the combination of better skills and better software can make significant improvements to our old photos. And that’s fun you are gong through your archives, I probably should do the same, I know I could do a better job with my old shots too.
 
Aaron Macomber

Aaron Macomber

Well-Known Member
Ben Egbert said:
Great find in your archives, and nicely processed.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ben!

JimFox said:
Hey Aaron, it’s Posts and photos like this one from you that warm my heart that you are back and active with us. :)

This has such a great look to it, I am glad that the combination of better skills and better software can make significant improvements to our old photos. And that’s fun you are gong through your archives, I probably should do the same, I know I could do a better job with my old shots too.
Click to expand...
Well thanks Jim, I enjoy being here, it’s a really positive bunch of humans. Not to mention real talent abounds. Thanks also for the compliment!

The archives... what a project! I’ve spent the better part of five days going through it, some 32,000 + frames. Yikes. I’ve got it down to 7,000 and 125GB roughly and there’s probably a little more to do. It’s been fun though, lots of memories.. even some good ones! :)
 
Tom Narwid

Tom Narwid

Well-Known Member
Aaron Macomber said:
I’ve been sifting through more or less every image I’ve ever taken seeing whats there,(725GB ) and thinning the herd. I ran across this image that I took in 2005. I’m glad I had the RAW file because the processing I did on it back then was a mile past horrible. I like this shot and believe it or not, I rememeber the hike :) Though my skills at the time aren’t reflected in this photograph, I managed to trip and fall into a pretty technically satisfying image I think

Canon 20D, 17-40mm @ 40mm, iso 100 for .6 seconds

I dont think I’ve ever been more proud of a lens than I was of that 17-40, my first L lens.

Click to expand...
Nicely done.
 
Mike Lewis

Mike Lewis

Staff Member
Wow! I confess to often being underwhelmed by waterfall images (not sure why?) but this image is great! I love the water treatment shutter speed wise; looks great but still looks like water too. Subtle lighting and very nice framing make the shot. For fun, you really should post the original PP on this one. It is always fun and instructive to be able to see where we have come not just on finding and taking the images, but in post processing them.

And congrats on finding such a great image in your older files. That bis the very reason why I have LOTS of trouble throwing out my stuff that I am supposedly finished culling out the good images from. I am not going to tell you how many bytes of images I am storing. But it has more significant digits than the number you mentioned at the top of the post :)

ML
 
Aaron Macomber

Aaron Macomber

Well-Known Member
Mike Lewis said:
Wow! I confess to often being underwhelmed by waterfall images (not sure why?) but this image is great! I love the water treatment shutter speed wise; looks great but still looks like water too. Subtle lighting and very nice framing make the shot. For fun, you really should post the original PP on this one. It is always fun and instructive to be able to see where we have come not just on finding and taking the images, but in post processing them.

And congrats on finding such a great image in your older files. That bis the very reason why I have LOTS of trouble throwing out my stuff that I am supposedly finished culling out the good images from. I am not going to tell you how many bytes of images I am storing. But it has more significant digits than the number you mentioned at the top of the post :)

ML
Click to expand...
Well thanks! I’ll see if I can dig up the original version of PP I did, but I think I deleted it

Haha, well I was right there with you in terms of keeping everything, that, and I was just being unorganized. I have kept all the possibly compelling raws I ran across and have it dont to 7K or so files so far. Thats a lot, but not compared to the some 37K there was when I started
 
Tom Narwid

Tom Narwid

Well-Known Member
Aaron Macomber said:
I’ve been sifting through more or less every image I’ve ever taken seeing whats there,(725GB ) and thinning the herd. I ran across this image that I took in 2005. I’m glad I had the RAW file because the processing I did on it back then was a mile past horrible. I like this shot and believe it or not, I rememeber the hike :) Though my skills at the time aren’t reflected in this photograph, I managed to trip and fall into a pretty technically satisfying image I think

Canon 20D, 17-40mm @ 40mm, iso 100 for .6 seconds

I dont think I’ve ever been more proud of a lens than I was of that 17-40, my first L lens.

Click to expand...
Very nice….anyone would be proud of this take!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom