Faux of Multnomah Falls [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

ni$mo350

8th of February 2010 (Mon), 01:44

Too much or just right?

HQ: here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32971396@N08/4336062811/sizes/o//)

JoePhotoOnline

8th of February 2010 (Mon), 02:25

A little much for me, but everyone's different.

Good:
It's Sharp

Weak:
I think the comp is kinda boring with the fall dead center. Maybe a simple rule-of-thirds approach with the fall to the right would work nicely.

JoePhotoOnline

8th of February 2010 (Mon), 02:27

You have "Editing ok" checked, so here's my quick stab at it:

Little less contrast, vibrance, and a crop.

Gary McDuffie

8th of February 2010 (Mon), 20:23

Color seems off and horizon is low left tilted. I'm not turned on by the comp either. Sorry.

ni$mo350

8th of February 2010 (Mon), 21:18

Color seems off and horizon is low left tilted. I'm not turned on by the comp either. Sorry.

No reason to be sorry, this is how we learn. You're right though, I shot it from a huge parking lot quite a bit away and I shot from the right to the left and tried to compensate. My only excuse for composition is that I only had my Sigma 10-20 on me at that time so it didn't help for composition. Thanks to Joe for the quick crop and adjustments.

bpiper7

9th of February 2010 (Tue), 11:21

Color seems off and horizon is low left tilted. I'm not turned on by the comp either. Sorry.

I'm not being argumentative. I am always getting the horizon tilted myself but there's no horizon in this picture. It's a mountain hidden by ground level trees in the foreground. The waterfall is pretty much straight up and down So I assume the camera was level.

The mountain moves down to the left. If the OP leveled that, the waterfall would fall at an angle.

So what am I missing?:)

ni$mo350

9th of February 2010 (Tue), 12:15

I'm not being argumentative. I am always getting the horizon tilted myself but there's no horizon in this picture. It's a mountain hidden by ground level trees in the foreground. The waterfall is pretty much straight up and down So I assume the camera was level.

The mountain moves down to the left. If the OP leveled that, the waterfall would fall at an angle.

So what am I missing?:)

Taken on the new manfrotto with all legs locked evenly but I did take it about 100 feet to the right and aimed left and the mountain itself is very staggered.

Gary McDuffie

9th of February 2010 (Tue), 18:19

I'm not being argumentative. I am always getting the horizon tilted myself but there's no horizon in this picture. It's a mountain hidden by ground level trees in the foreground. The waterfall is pretty much straight up and down So I assume the camera was level.

The mountain moves down to the left. If the OP leveled that, the waterfall would fall at an angle.

So what am I missing?:)

The water isn't falling vertical. It is to the right at the bottom.

ni$mo350

9th of February 2010 (Tue), 18:25

Possible distortion from the Sigma at 10mm instead of 20?

Gary McDuffie

9th of February 2010 (Tue), 18:37

Could be. It is the right direction.

bpiper7

10th of February 2010 (Wed), 13:32

I'm not being argumentative. I am always getting the horizon tilted myself but there's no horizon in this picture. It's a mountain hidden by ground level trees in the foreground. The waterfall is pretty much straight up and down So I assume the camera was level.

The mountain moves down to the left. If the OP leveled that, the waterfall would fall at an angle.

So what am I missing?:)

Taken on the new manfrotto with all legs locked evenly but I did take it about 100 feet to the right and aimed left and the mountain itself is very staggered.

Apparently the waterfall is off a couple degrees. :rolleyes:

That's calling a tight game, I think.
But I don't want to get argmentative. :cool:

bpiper7

10th of February 2010 (Wed), 13:34

I'm not being argumentative. I am always getting the horizon tilted myself but there's no horizon in this picture. It's a mountain hidden by ground level trees in the foreground. The waterfall is pretty much straight up and down So I assume the camera was level.

The mountain moves down to the left. If the OP leveled that, the waterfall would fall at an angle.

So what am I missing?:)

The water isn't falling vertical. It is to the right at the bottom.

I see. A couple degrees?

Okay. I did say "pretty much staight up and down". Obviously I'm missing my plumb bob.

This is a tough league.:cool:

Kevin

10th of February 2010 (Wed), 14:05

Not wanting to beat the subject into the ground but since you were using an UWA and shooting from this angle I would fully expect to see the waterfall angling to the left at the bottom slightly. You will also see distortion due to camera angle with that UWA, it will want to lay down the mountains, which further complicates perspective. The best piece of gear to own along with a tripod is a Spirit Level, especially when you don't have an horizon or horizontal or vertical frame of reference.

ni$mo350

10th of February 2010 (Wed), 15:31

I have a leveler on my manfrotto head but apparently wasn't using it but will next time

Gary McDuffie

10th of February 2010 (Wed), 20:27

I have a leveler on my manfrotto head but apparently wasn't using it but will next time

Unfortunately, I've yet to see one that was really right when the camera was level. That said, I found the ones on my Manfroto were adjustable to make up for it. Still I think the hot shoe mounted ones are probably more accurate. Now, I've taken to using the one built into the camera. Seems even better more accurate. :)