Falls

Boundary Falls I believe is the correct name... at Niagara

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

Nice shot. I'm curious, did you use any filters on this shot?

Wow, what a scene. A ND filter and proper exposure would have made this spectacular.

Scott, just for my own benefit, what's wrong with the exposure and what is an ND filter?

Thanks
Paul

I honestly can't tell if the exposure is off (perhaps a little underexposed?), but something looks off. Wouldn't a circular polarizer be a better option for this shot than ND? I'm still learning when it's appropriate to use which filter, but I was under the impression if water is a major part of the shot to use a CP. Wouldn't the CP reduce the light reflecting off the mist obscuring the falls?

And a link to what ND filters are:
http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Neutral_density​_filter

An ND filter is a neutral density filter, basically it allows less light to reach the front element of the lens and thus less light to reach the sensor. There are instances where having a long exposure even when not necessary can aid the shot. A great example of this is a waterfall. Those silky smooth shots you see of running water or waves under a pier are usually performed with the use of an ND filter. With the ND a 1/30 second exposure might become a 1/15 depending on the strength of the filter. I personally have 3 NDs I use stacked. So that 1/30 might drop down to 1/4.

Anyhow as far as your shot goes I like the exposure and the composition, the colors are a bit on the bright side, but overall I like it. However, if I was even with in 100 miles of that waterfall I would be driving back to that spot tonight at sunset and turning my camera to shutter priority with a shutter speed of around 2 seconds using a good tripod and taking another shot preying for a decent sunset. Give it a try if you get out there again, but in the mean time you have done very well.

Morlow, it depends on the effect you want here, a CP does a great job of reducing strong highlights, which personally I don't find in this shot. NDs mostly just help to increase the length of the exposure.

Looking at the shot a bit more though I am wondering where the focus was set too. Seems the foreground is sharp and the background is a bit hazy, at first I was thinking this is just the mist from the water, but not sure now. Anyhow who am I to judge.

Yes, the focus is on the foreground....the falls themselves are a tad soft. The exposure on your shot looks good....just needs minor processing to give it a little more "pop". This was nothing more than a slight pull on the curve, and a quick clarify, using Corel (not sure what Adobe's equivalent is called...I own it, but haven't used it). Oh, also cloned out that UFO in the lower right. Not the be all end all, of course, but it does give it a little more oomph, IMO. All a matter of taste. Beautiful, beautiful scene.
As far as ND filters go....I use mine quite often, and not just for blurred waterfalls. I use them to salvage detail in bright lighting that would have otherwise been lost. If you don't have them, they're nice to have in the bag, along with graduated neutral density filters, which see heavy use from me.

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

The original photo looks pretty darn good to me. I don't see any exposure problems, other than a couple slightly hot spots in the water. Overall, it is a pleasing image to me.

Thanks for all the feedback. This shot was taken on the fly as we were on a tour and only had 1 hour in Niagara so after riding Maiden of the Mist, my wife and I were actually running around trying to capture as much as we could so I did not have a chance to compose any of the shots. Obviously would be better with Tripod and more attention to settings.

A nice photo. You wouldn't need an ND for those falls. A polariser would be better though. You don't need a tripod either. This shot I took was handheld with a CLP

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I agree 100%... simply the fact that I was actually running from spot to spot and didn't lug all my gear to Toronto, this was what I got. I have all the filters, just didn't want to carry it all on the tour.

I don't know if anyone knows what I mean when I say that my pic reminds me of those cheap and cheezy pics you can find in some stores that are backlit with moving lights to make it seems as though the water is moving.

Anyone, anyone??!!

Bulldawg534 wrote in post #7418257
I don't know if anyone knows what I mean when I say that my pic reminds me of those cheap and cheezy pics you can find in some stores that are backlit with moving lights to make it seems as though the water is moving.

Anyone, anyone??!!

I know the ones you're talking about....kind of ones you see in those shopping centres (malls) that people always look at but never purchase...but for me your photo doesn't do that!

Harm wrote in post #7418308
I know the ones you're talking about....kind of ones you see in those shopping centres (malls) that people always look at but never purchase...but for me your photo doesn't do that!

Hehehe... those are the ones. Sometimes you see them in old diners too.