Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
Thread started 13 Dec 2010 (Monday) 20:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Waterfall

 
sodalis
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Upstate NY
     
Dec 13, 2010 20:53 |  #1

From earlier this fall in NY.

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Beau1k
Senior Member
Avatar
295 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 13, 2010 21:00 |  #2

So how'd you do it?


7D - Transcend 32GB 600x - 70/200 IS II & 17-55 - Dolica Proline Carbon Fiber

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sodalis
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Upstate NY
     
Dec 13, 2010 21:28 |  #3

Beau1k wrote in post #11447581 (external link)
So how'd you do it?

My camera did it, I just push buttons... :oops::oops::oops:

:lol:

If you mean settings and gear and such, it was with a 1Ds2 and 24-70mm on a tripod with exposures from about 0.5 to 1.5 seconds, ISO 100 and apertures ranging from f/7.1 on the vertical shot to f/13 and f/14 on the other two.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
disjecta
Senior Member
Avatar
602 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Dec 13, 2010 22:48 |  #4

If you are using some kind of auto feature on your camera, I'd suggest you take it down about a stop (+/- compensation). It's tough to find a balance between the white of the water and the shadows but the water is seriously overexposed in these shots.

You should consider shooting in CameraRAW if you are not already. That way, you would be able to rescue some detail in the highlights.


Failure is always an option.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nimrod1193
Member
44 posts
Joined Apr 2010
     
Dec 13, 2010 22:54 |  #5

The colors around the waterfall really pop. Nice work.


50D | 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS | EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm 1.4 | EFS 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS
Corel PaintShop Photo Pro x3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Dec 14, 2010 07:01 as a reply to  @ Nimrod1193's post |  #6

I agree with most of the above comments...location looks good, fall colors are nice, but the water is severely blown beyond rescue.

Be sure you have highlights (blinkies) turned on in your camera's menu and check your histogram between shots...you'll have immediate feedback with regard to any overexposed areas whereby you can then adjust your exposure to compensate. Also, look into exposing to the right (ETTR).


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joeleszc
Senior Member
Avatar
471 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 59
Joined Dec 2009
     
Dec 14, 2010 08:08 |  #7

I agree the water is a bit overexposed but you did capture the great surrounding colors. Looks like a great location, can you share it with us?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DLitton
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Dec 14, 2010 09:28 |  #8

disjecta wrote in post #11448182 (external link)
If you are using some kind of auto feature on your camera, I'd suggest you take it down about a stop (+/- compensation). It's tough to find a balance between the white of the water and the shadows but the water is seriously overexposed in these shots.

You should consider shooting in CameraRAW if you are not already. That way, you would be able to rescue some detail in the highlights.

I agree with that 100%. You did a great job exposing for everything but the water. Using RAW can editing it from that can help... or get some filters and work it that way.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
p27rpy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,418 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 14, 2010 10:02 |  #9

very nice! love the saturated colors


Theo Civitello - Houston Based Automotive, Wedding & Life Photography (external link)
Flickr (external link)
My Blog - Latest uploads and detailed Strobist info! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sodalis
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
304 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Upstate NY
     
Dec 14, 2010 16:59 |  #10

disjecta wrote in post #11448182 (external link)
If you are using some kind of auto feature on your camera, I'd suggest you take it down about a stop (+/- compensation). It's tough to find a balance between the white of the water and the shadows but the water is seriously overexposed in these shots.

You should consider shooting in CameraRAW if you are not already. That way, you would be able to rescue some detail in the highlights.


I was only joking with my earlier response. :p I'm quite familiar with my camera and shooting RAW.

I did however forget that the last adjustment I made to these in LR3 was bumping the overall exposure a bit for printing, which resulted in the highlights looking blown on a computer monitor. :oops:

I brought them back down for monitor viewing and re-exported, the versions now posted above should look better.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,898 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Dec 14, 2010 19:20 |  #11

sodalis wrote in post #11452795 (external link)
I was only joking with my earlier response. :p I'm quite familiar with my camera and shooting RAW.

I did however forget that the last adjustment I made to these in LR3 was bumping the overall exposure a bit for printing, which resulted in the highlights looking blown on a computer monitor. :oops:

I brought them back down for monitor viewing and re-exported, the versions now posted above should look better.

Some people reading this thread, myself included, can really get confused when they see your images posted in post #1 and then read comments by disjecta and others and then wonder what the heck they're talking about. Just a suggestion but if you want to post an updated image, it might make more sense to embed it in a new post rather than updating the original. That way, you maintain the continuity of the discussion. :)


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photoguy6405
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,310 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 19
Joined Feb 2008
Location: US Midwest
     
Dec 14, 2010 23:05 |  #12

PacAce wrote in post #11453498 (external link)
Some people reading this thread, myself included, can really get confused when they see your images posted in post #1 and then read comments by disjecta and others and then wonder what the heck they're talking about. Just a suggestion but if you want to post an updated image, it might make more sense to embed it in a new post rather than updating the original. That way, you maintain the continuity of the discussion. :)

I agree with this. I learn from other's threads as well as my own, and it helps me learn to see both the before and after.


Website: Iowa Landscape Photography (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear List & Feedback
Equipment For Sale: Canon PowerShot A95

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Dec 15, 2010 06:56 |  #13

sodalis wrote in post #11452795 (external link)
I was only joking with my earlier response. :p I'm quite familiar with my camera and shooting RAW.

I did however forget that the last adjustment I made to these in LR3 was bumping the overall exposure a bit for printing, which resulted in the highlights looking blown on a computer monitor. :oops:

I brought them back down for monitor viewing and re-exported, the versions now posted above should look better.

I don't know...they still look severely blown to me, especially the first image. The pool of water below the falls is just a white blob void of any texture or definition. IMO, the shutter speed was way too slow where you now have "cotton candy" water.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DLitton
Senior Member
Avatar
855 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Dec 15, 2010 10:20 |  #14

argyle wrote in post #11455687 (external link)
I don't know...they still look severely blown to me, especially the first image. The pool of water below the falls is just a white blob void of any texture or definition. IMO, the shutter speed was way too slow where you now have "cotton candy" water.

dito...

they are much better... but they still look off in a few ways... i really feel that while the highlights are not as blown out you still had the shutter wayyy too long... and the water is just overdone. either see if you took a faster shot or go back if u can and shoot it again. i feel that there are extremes (shooting a waterfall handheld and getting stop motion on the water, and then this case) and they should usually try to be avoided unless aiming for them.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
probe1957
Member
Avatar
107 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Central IL
     
Dec 15, 2010 12:55 |  #15

I have never been able to get a good waterfall picture in my life. I wouldn't be saying that if these shots had been taken by me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,743 views & 0 likes for this thread
Waterfall
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Nature & Landscapes 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is paneerIegend
1172 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.