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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
Thread started 13 Jun 2004 (Sunday) 14:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Which is your pick? (Waterfall shot)

 
roanjohn
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Jun 13, 2004 14:13 |  #1

WOOOHOOOO!!! Finally got a chance to be one with nature this weekend.

Okay, I want all of your input on this. Which one is better??

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'


or

IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'


Both taken with 300D, 17-40 f4 L, at f13 and 1/3 using MLU (thanks Wasai!!!).

Ro1



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
damnengine
Member
119 posts
Joined Apr 2003
     
Jun 13, 2004 14:18 |  #2

the second one is more interesting imo, shot as a portrait it compliments the height of the waterfall.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tommykjensen
Cream of the Crop
21,013 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 260
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.
     
Jun 13, 2004 14:24 |  #3

I don't know which one I like the most. Its probably because I prefer the water to be frozen - no pun intended - in a shot of a waterfall. For some reason the blurred water doesn't appeal to me - but thats just me I think.

Other than that it is nice shots.


EDITING OF MY PHOTOS IS NOT ALLOWED

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Jun 13, 2004 14:29 |  #4

I like them both, for different reasons. I can't really choose.

The first gives a nice feel for the place I'd say. I like the foreground rocks in the second, and the composition is better.

Nope, still can't choose.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Calis
Member
Avatar
176 posts
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Wakefield UK
     
Jun 13, 2004 15:44 |  #5

I'll say the first one as long as you crop some of the bottom and the left hand side.


Phil
www.pbase.com/calis (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Jun 13, 2004 18:39 |  #6

Hmmm...............Tha​nks for the comments guys.

I think I am leaning with the 2nd one so far. I actually will plan to blow it up using Costco.

Calis - I might try that with the 1st shot.

Scottes - Thanks............It was hard choosing for me too.

Tommy - I have shots of the water frozen..........It was not enough water to be called a waterfall.............​It was like droplets of water :-(

Damnengine - Yeah.......the 2nd shot compliments the waterfall better.

RO1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elbirth
Goldmember
Avatar
1,886 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 13, 2004 18:41 |  #7

I agree with damnengine in that the 2nd one is more interesting. The portrait layout of the picture adds interest because it's not landscaped, and is in line with the height of the waterfall, as mentioned.

It also seems slightly more zoomed in on the waterfall, giving it more focus. The addition of the water at the bottom of the picture, and the rocks, add another element to it, so it helps to compliment the waterfall, and vice versa.

Maybe it's my imagination, but the 2nd one also seems richer in color... maybe it's because there's more of the darker water at the bottom in comparison to the rock cliff.... I'm not sure...


5D Mark II, Leica M8
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM
POTN Strap, Domke J3 bag

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Jun 13, 2004 20:06 |  #8

Thanks Elbirth!!! You just made it more official.........the 2nd shot it is!!!

Ro1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sendide
Senior Member
305 posts
Joined Jan 2004
     
Jun 13, 2004 23:03 |  #9

the second is my choice, would love to see what it would be if the camera was little down, close to the water and rocks , giving some pespective from down to up to the waterfall ( not enough down to get it wet though :wink:
regards
Khalid




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shniks
Goldmember
Avatar
1,041 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jun 14, 2004 00:04 |  #10

Nice shots, I have a 'thing' for waterfalls. I like the second better too, it leads your eye down the photo better.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Jun 14, 2004 07:15 |  #11

Sendide wrote:
would love to see what it would be if the camera was little down, close to the water and rocks , giving some pespective from down to up to the waterfall ( not enough down to get it wet though :wink:
regards
Khalid

Those rocks are further out from where the waterfall is actually located. I think the photo made it seem, "perspectively" speaking, closer than they appear to be.

OTOH, I also tried taking the waterfall closer from its base but the bright sky made it impossible for me to use a slow shutter speed without overexposing anything - maybe on another really overcast day I will attempt that.

Thanks for the ideas!! Maybe I will also bring a garbage bag next time I go there.

Ro1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lamplight
Goldmember
Avatar
1,072 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Bellingham, WA
     
Jun 14, 2004 09:12 |  #12

I definitely like the second one better, not that the first is bad though. The second one simply does it for me. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Jun 14, 2004 17:54 |  #13

Thanks Ben.............

:-)

Ro1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clorich
Member
Avatar
118 posts
Joined May 2003
Location: Tavares, FL
     
Jun 14, 2004 18:21 |  #14

elbirth wrote:
I agree with damnengine in that the 2nd one is more interesting. The portrait layout of the picture adds interest because it's not landscaped, and is in line with the height of the waterfall, as mentioned.

It also seems slightly more zoomed in on the waterfall, giving it more focus. The addition of the water at the bottom of the picture, and the rocks, add another element to it, so it helps to compliment the waterfall, and vice versa.

Maybe it's my imagination, but the 2nd one also seems richer in color... maybe it's because there's more of the darker water at the bottom in comparison to the rock cliff.... I'm not sure...

Ditto!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dn7elson
Senior Member
819 posts
Joined Apr 2002
     
Jun 14, 2004 18:55 |  #15

OK, I'll be the dissenter. After seeing both, I like the first one better. I thing that I miss the closure of the water pool at the bottom on the 2nd one and find more of interest in the horizontal direction than the vertical.

The addition of more foreground rocks isn't as interesting as the addition of more of the setting that you get in the first.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,691 views & 0 likes for this thread, 12 members have posted to it.
Which is your pick? (Waterfall shot)
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Thunderstream
1807 guests, 101 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, 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.