First Waterfall

I went shooting with a group today and I took what I believe to be my first ever waterfall shots. In any event, I'd like any feedback that you can give on the following shot- what you like, what you don't, what needs work, or what doesn't work. Looking at it again now, I think that I might go back and crop slightly higher above the rock in the upper left corner, even though the entire rock is there- it just seems a little tight to me. Thanks for looking..

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Mmmhhh... strange... do you sleepwalk?

I like the pic. What draws my attention the most is not the waterfall itself but the motion in the water below. I find it quite fascinating in this instance.

One thing: I remember reading a hint in a photo book saying that we shouldn't limit ourselves to taking the whole waterfall all the time. A pic that shows just the top (or just the bottom) leaves more to the imagination and allows you more room to be creative in your composition. I was a bit hesitant at first but I tried it and it is indeed quite fun. The results are sometimes surprising.

Personally I think that you nailed it. I would like it a little better if the rock hadn't been cropped off. It doesn't lool complete. The water looks great though.

There are almost two separate pictures here - so much is included.

The composition is a little overwhelming in terms of separate areas of interest.

I could see one picture from the top as a Portrait format to include the very white pool just below the falls. The second picture would be the bottom of the picture up to that same line and in Landscape format.

The exposre is excellent and the color balance seems to be accurate.

Water can be photographed a million different ways in order to convey the idea that it is in motion.

This is one of those situations where I don't feel that the water of the falls needs any help in conveying the idea that it is in motion - in this case I think it looks un-natural as a result of the long shutter time.

I totally agree : photographing waterfalls using a slow shutter speed seems to be 'compulsory' these days and I wonder who started such a convention. This isn't how the eye sees a waterfall - it should look wet, cold and turbulent.......

This would have looked a great photo otherwise - can the photographer go back and try again??!!

colliewalker1 wrote:
I totally agree : photographing waterfalls using a slow shutter speed seems to be 'compulsory' these days and I wonder who started such a convention. This isn't how the eye sees a waterfall - it should look wet, cold and turbulent.......

This would have looked a great photo otherwise - can the photographer go back and try again??!!

Colliewalker- Thanks for the comments. I must admit that the decision to use a long shutter speed was intentional. I did not, and will not for that matter, claim that the image was to be a realistic representation of the waterfall. I wholehartedly agree that long shutter speeds in these situations portray a very unatural image of the subject. I do, however, think that if one keeps in mind that certain photographic techniques can add an unatural quality to an image or a subject and still be of benefit, this can itself be a strength. At times I think that such a "silky" portrayal of water can add a sense of time and even a surrealisitc quality to an image. That being said, I do not mean to criticize your take on what could make the image better- in fact, next time I visit this area I will be sure to take a few shots of this waterfall with the goal of having crisp, sharp, cold features in the water. Besides, I asked for your opinion now didn't I ...

Although it is not in landscape format, is this a little more like what you are suggesting?

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Would have been easier to do it than to explain it, but your Edit Permission is turned off.
The line between the two images that I had in mind would cut through the image just below the white pool at the bottom of the falls. There is a large rock there to the right in the gap, and the line would cut just under that rock.

That line would then be the top of the bottom picture, but the bottom of the top picture
could come down lower than that.

Image editing is on now...I thought that I had already done that but I guess not. If you'd like, be my guest.

Thank you for turning editing on. It would have been too cumbersome to try to explain the changes I would have made if it were mine. First, I would have increased the saturation. My method of choice is duplicate the layer and set the blend mode to Soft Light.

Second, I would have wanted to get rid of the distracting horizontal line on the left that is created where the branches suddenly become full (440 pixels down from the top if you are counting). So I cropped the left edge.

Third, I took a look to see what did not add to the shot: a lot of foliage. Yes, the shot is in the woods, I get that, I don't need all of the vegetation there to know that. Once the environment is made, too much context can take away from the subject. So I cropped the right edge.

Fourth, I noticed, as others did, that the pool cuts the shot in half. I (more or less arbitrarily) chose to keep the fall and not the stream as the subject. So I cropped the inferior edge.

All that being done, I do wish there was just a smidgen more room above the top of the falls. Oh well, if wishes were horses...

Below is what I ended up with, which, to me, look cleaner and more to the point.

I would like to address something that colliewalker1 said.

I agree, but I ask, why not?

When I was a pup, I worked in an Ice Rink for about 4 years. I got to know a lot of the skaters, including some that went to the '80 Olympics. Back then they were graded on "compulsories" as part of their ranking. Specific moves, done in specific ways. What they learned what technical proficiency. It built foundational skills that later carried over to the creative part of their skating.

This type of "waterfalls using a slow shutter speed seems" is a quick and easy way for a novice or journeyman photographer to learn long exposure technique, and create a pretty passable shot first time out. I was, and still am, proud of my first "slow waterfall" shot. It was one of the first shots I did that rose above the rank of snapshot to something that required forethought, equipment, planning, and an amount of craft.

I say that if they are not, in fact, compulsory, they should be. They are often the first step into a world of creative photography and should not be dismissed lightly.

Rad

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

To me most of the bushes, especially the motion-blurred ones, detract somewhat from the overall effect due their lackluster (albeit probably natural) color, lack of contrast, and being a little too much in evidence. Contradicting the lack of contrast of the foreground bushes, The topmost background tree just right of the waterfall has very unnaturally sharp black (and seemingly blurred) shaded areas that look almost as if they've been painted.

It's a pretty waterfall, though, and the water is nice enough. As for cutting it into two images, I think the right-hand golden bush could detract from the effect of the top crop by blocking important things, especially the water and perhaps the right bank.

The modded version is prettier, nicer, but too narrow for my mind; I feel the desire to see what else is nearby, but it's cropped out.

dwildone wrote:
Colliewalker- Thanks for the comments - next time I visit this area I will be sure to take a few shots of this waterfall with the goal of having crisp, sharp, cold features in the water. Besides, I asked for your opinion now didn't I ...

David -

I'll look forward to seeing your next shots!

Cheers -

Denis