Here’s another from my archive. I did some minor tweaking to the cottonwood tree, and cloned out a couple bits in the water.
This was made in Yosemite along the Merced River in late October.
Chamonix 4x5
Nikkor 300mm
f/32 @ 2s
Astia 100F
Your thoughts are always appreciated. 
–P
I remember this one and I think I was there when you made it? I quite like it. I might clone the tree along the upper right edge?
Preston, the isolation and lighting on the main tree and it’s reflection look great. It’s a nicely peaceful, contemplative scene. I’m seeing the shrubs and tree as just a tad hot, although that does let them stand out nicely. It’s also interesting in that there seems to be a subtle lack of detail in the bright areas, which I’m thinking speaks to the issues involved in scanning film.
Preston,
Love the scene and of course familiar with it. You did a great job isolating the tree and taking advantage of the clear reflection.
I only have a couple minor nits/suggestions that fall in to the personal choice category. First one is also noting the sliver of tree on the UR edge; a slight crop or clone would take care of that. The second is that to me, I think the reds are a bit strong - most notably in the cedar/pine trunks in the UL quadrant and even some of the finer detailed reds in the plans along the shoreline. Minor, but noticeable if one is looking… 
Most certainly a lovely Merced River scenic - a couple tweaks could take this up another notch.
Lon
Thanks for your comments, everyone!
At this juncture, I likely won’t tweak and repost, but I agree with your assessments.
@Mark_Seaver: I agree about the softness in the leaves and other bright areas. The transparency was scanned at 1800 dpi on a flatbed scanner (Microtek) which usually does a good job with detail. I’d have to search my tranny boxes and find the piece of film to check the sharpness. It is also possible, given the location of the image, that there was slight movement due to wind and/or water movement during the exposure.
–P
