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 24 Feb 2011 (Thursday) 19:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

long exposure waterfall

 
samismurf
Member
134 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: quebec
     
Feb 24, 2011 19:50 |  #1

I just wanted to thanx POTN for the fabulous community you guys are. In one year I learnt so much from reading here and without you, I think I would have never been able to accomplished such a nice picture in my opinion( this is one of the best picture I've taken in my life) and I'm quite happy with the results. CC is welcome thanx alot.

I had been shooting for exactly one year last week, so It's great to see the progress I've made.. coming for a t2i now with a 7d :)


This picture was taken on my trip to hawaii and it was just amazing, more pictures to come after im done editing. :)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i305.photobucke​t.com …n232/mpsam/butt​er-fly.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

0.001 of a picture is worth one word I guess?!
Canon 7dgripped- Nifty Fifty- 17-40f4 L- -70-200 f2.8 L is-430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
stuman16
Goldmember
1,004 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Nov 2007
Location: SoCal OC
     
Feb 24, 2011 19:55 |  #2

I love the composition and it seems very sharp.

The color seems way off on my monitor. The white ballance looks way to hot.


www.stumanphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROSTIDESIGN
Member
50 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: West Coast
     
Feb 24, 2011 19:58 |  #3

I was going to say the same about the WB - too warm, I'm pretty sure it would be cooler, unless this is raw looong exposure at night..


ROSTIDESIGN | PHOTOGRAPHY
CANON 60D; Canon 200mm f/2.8L, Sigma 28mm f/1.8, & more coming

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
disjecta
Senior Member
Avatar
602 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
     
Feb 24, 2011 20:25 |  #4

The color cast on this image is so extreme that it is flattening any natural contrast that was in it to begin with. The tonal range has really been compromised. If you shot in Camera RAW, this can be easily corrected. Even if the original is a jpeg it can be corrected.

Color effects are fine, if that was your intention, but not if it overwhelms the actual subject.


Failure is always an option.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cobra351
Goldmember
Avatar
2,996 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Feb 24, 2011 22:31 as a reply to  @ disjecta's post |  #5

I agree with what's been said about the color. Nice as it is, but I bet it could look better with a bit of adjustment.

As to the photo itself, according to your forum title here your main subject was the waterfall. While it was well captured, the whole scene leads my attention away from the waterfall. Mostly that twisty tree on the right - it really pulls my eyes away from the waterfall. I love the tree and the scene itself, but if you really want more attention on the falls only I'd either re-shoot with more focal length (to zoom in more on the falls themselves) or crop the photo a bit.


Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 40D - Infrared Modified (www.lifepixel.com (external link))
Canon Lenses: 17-40, 24-105 f/4 IS, 100 2.8 IS Macro, TS-E 90, 70-200 f/4 IS, 100-400 IS
Canon EF25 II , EF 1.4x II

Smith & Wesson M&P 340CT .357 Magnum

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phrasikleia
Goldmember
Avatar
1,828 posts
Likes: 14
Joined May 2008
Location: Based in California and Slovenia
     
Feb 24, 2011 22:57 |  #6

The white balance is way off, and that's making it difficult to appreciate the photo. I also agree with Cobra351 that the composition is quite busy. The eye kind of nervously flitters around looking for a place to call home. There are a lot of competing points of interest.


Photography by Erin Babnik (external link) | Newsletter (external link) | Photo Cascadia Team Member (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROSTIDESIGN
Member
50 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: West Coast
     
Feb 25, 2011 00:27 |  #7

edit:
http://www.facebook.co​m …9.1287470338658​19&theater (external link)

comparison:
http://www.facebook.co​m …9.1287470338658​19&theater (external link)

I hope you don't mind me altering your work for the comparison...

I turned down the temperature and had to add some contrast and a little vibrance. I can't match anything yet, as I have not seen the actual place. But just lightly modified to show the result that could be a bit better? maybe? I don't know you compare..


ROSTIDESIGN | PHOTOGRAPHY
CANON 60D; Canon 200mm f/2.8L, Sigma 28mm f/1.8, & more coming

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samismurf
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
134 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2010
Location: quebec
     
Feb 25, 2011 02:11 |  #8

thanx everyone, yes it was a long exposure at night, and yes I guess the color is very warm for what it was. I just liked the feel of it being warmer than cooler. Here's another angle focusing on the waterfall more I guess and a bit cooler, wb wise thanx :) rostie I like your edit, thanx.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i305.photobucke​t.com …/nn232/mpsam/IM​G_8345.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

0.001 of a picture is worth one word I guess?!
Canon 7dgripped- Nifty Fifty- 17-40f4 L- -70-200 f2.8 L is-430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROSTIDESIGN
Member
50 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: West Coast
     
Feb 25, 2011 02:48 |  #9

Nice, I nailed it :) I had a problem usually with white balance at night, would be too warm or um too green. Speaking of green, there may be a little much yellow/green.. now that I look at it just warm?? IDK..

for fun
http://www.facebook.co​m …u.1287470338658​19&theater (external link)

although I don't believe I fixed anything with this one.. im just too sleepy probably :)

What do you use to edit? Just wondering..


ROSTIDESIGN | PHOTOGRAPHY
CANON 60D; Canon 200mm f/2.8L, Sigma 28mm f/1.8, & more coming

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Feb 25, 2011 13:13 as a reply to  @ ROSTIDESIGN's post |  #10

I'm not seeing any pictures...

Never mind...it showed up.


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

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Feb 25, 2011 13:16 |  #11

samismurf wrote in post #11910470 (external link)
thanx everyone, yes it was a long exposure at night, and yes I guess the color is very warm for what it was. I just liked the feel of it being warmer than cooler. Here's another angle focusing on the waterfall more I guess and a bit cooler, wb wise thanx :) rostie I like your edit, thanx.

Sorry, but not cool enough. The tint of the image has sapped all life out of it...


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

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kit ­ lens
Goldmember
Avatar
1,150 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Durham, NC
     
Feb 26, 2011 04:28 |  #12

Wow, the CC is a little over-critical. Granted there is a WB issue between the shots.....but that can be somewhat corrected, and easily at that with a RAW file. Either way, they are both great shots IMO. They are both more or less shots of the landscaping, with no true subject.......but they work great.

Some of the CC is regarding the title of the thread versus the actual pictures.....a little petty IMO. What I read is "long exposure waterfall". Before I opened the thread I just expected to see a long exposure shot with a waterfall in it. Griping about the thread title is a little rediculous.

Just my $.02.


My flickr (external link)
rick_reno is a postwhore

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Feb 26, 2011 06:19 |  #13

Phrasikleia wrote in post #11909767 (external link)
The white balance is way off, and that's making it difficult to appreciate the photo. I also agree with Cobra351 that the composition is quite busy. The eye kind of nervously flitters around looking for a place to call home. There are a lot of competing points of interest.

Exactly right.

kit lens wrote in post #11916898 (external link)
Wow, the CC is a little over-critical. Granted there is a WB issue between the shots.....but that can be somewhat corrected, and easily at that with a RAW file. Either way, they are both great shots IMO. They are both more or less shots of the landscaping, with no true subject.......but they work great.

Some of the CC is regarding the title of the thread versus the actual pictures.....a little petty IMO. What I read is "long exposure waterfall". Before I opened the thread I just expected to see a long exposure shot with a waterfall in it. Griping about the thread title is a little rediculous.

Just my $.02.

That's confusing. I don't understand critiques that say "great shot" but don't provide a reason as to why they're great. Personally, because there is nothing for my eyes to lock onto, they wander around the image and then settle on the distracting bright spot of light just above the rock (second post). I'm just not sure what you're seeing that calls out 'great'. If you were to expand on that, maybe some of us, as well as the OP, could have a better understanding of just what you're seeing. To me, they're 'okay' shots that could be improved upon with some tweaks (and compositional adjustments to keep in mind for the next time). As far as other compositional issues go, whenever possible its best to not cut off any foreground element. In this case, the foreground rock in the second image is a clear example of what not to do. There is the possibility that it couldn't have been avoided and, if so, it is what it is. But the generally accepted rule is to include the entire element if at all possible...

I'm not criticizing you (this is all subjective anyway)...but I'd just like to see a basis for comments such as 'great shot'. There are some great shots that do get posted in this forum. OTOH, there are many others that are clearly in need of improvement, but yet you'll see a plethora of 'great shot' and 'beautiful' tossed in with no basis provided for that conclusion. Labeling everything 'great shot' doesn't really help an OP to improve (generally speaking...not directed at this particular OP). Just an opinion, FWIW...


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

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cobra351
Goldmember
Avatar
2,996 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Feb 26, 2011 10:04 |  #14

kit lens wrote in post #11916898 (external link)
Some of the CC is regarding the title of the thread versus the actual pictures.....a little petty IMO. What I read is "long exposure waterfall". Before I opened the thread I just expected to see a long exposure shot with a waterfall in it. Griping about the thread title is a little rediculous.

Just my $.02.


I'm glad you at least read some of what I wrote (and Comment/Critique was asked for by original poster - that's why I added what I did), reading all of it though might better put what I wrote into context. I was in NO way attacking the title of the photo. What I said, again, is that if the title is "long exposure waterfall" I'd expect the main and clear subject of the photo to be just that, the waterfall (makes sense, doesn't it?). What I originally wrote was as the photo is presented here I thought the scene could be better presented to draw more emphasis on the waterfall as the scene was quite busy and the waterfall wasn't as prominent as it could be. Is that really "griping" to you? :confused:

Sorry you find such comments and suggestions ridiculous, but if someone asks for comments on their photos they should get them - it's how most of us get different perspectives to learn and grow in our art. Nothing ridiculous about that to me, maybe we just really see things differently though. ;)


Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 40D - Infrared Modified (www.lifepixel.com (external link))
Canon Lenses: 17-40, 24-105 f/4 IS, 100 2.8 IS Macro, TS-E 90, 70-200 f/4 IS, 100-400 IS
Canon EF25 II , EF 1.4x II

Smith & Wesson M&P 340CT .357 Magnum

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROSTIDESIGN
Member
50 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: West Coast
     
Feb 26, 2011 12:05 |  #15

I agree with the cobra & argyle. C/C was given because it is needed.

I guess some people don't see mistakes that others can notice? IDK


ROSTIDESIGN | PHOTOGRAPHY
CANON 60D; Canon 200mm f/2.8L, Sigma 28mm f/1.8, & more coming

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

3,115 views & 0 likes for this thread
long exposure 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 zaza1
943 guests, 219 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.