CC on falls picture please!

I took a ton of shots this weekend in Great Falls, and wanted some CC on these 4 pictures. I have things that I like about each, and things that I don't, and would like idea on how to improve on them or general comments on what people think

1. Handheld
ISO-100
16mm
F/10
1/200sec
PP: Sharpen
Q: Too zoomed out with the attention going to the rocks in the foreground instead of the waterfalls in the background?

2. Tripod + remote control
ISO-100
22mm
F/4.5
1/800sec
PP: Sharpen
Q: I know that I should've used something bigger than F/4.5 (F/10-F/20), but is the best composition out of the 4 shots?

3. Tripod + remote control
ISO-100
22mm
F/29
1/25sec
PP: Sharpen
Q: I tried putting something in the foreground to make the picture more interesting, but I think it's taking the attention away from the background?

4. Tripod + remote control
ISO-100
24mm
F/22
1/50sec
PP: Sharpen
Q: The picture seems blurry to me, even after sharpening it. The focus was on the water falls in the middle, but the only thing that looks sharp is the rocks in the front left section. Why would this be?

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Polarizer filter is recommended....
Saturation + 1
PP: Blue the sky more

IMOP....ignore me if you think that is not make sense...sorry

Last 2 photos look crooked... and I agree on what tonysang said...

tonytsang wrote in post #8440518
Polarizer filter is recommended....
Saturation + 1
PP: Blue the sky more

IMOP....ignore me if you think that is not make sense...sorry

Stupid question: If I had a polarizer on the lens, I could avoid PP'ing the sky to make it more blue, right? Are there are any other advantages to it (in this case, not in general)?

IVIax wrote in post #8440570
Stupid question: If I had a polarizer on the lens, I could avoid PP'ing the sky to make it more blue, right? Are there are any other advantages to it (in this case, not in general)?

depend how much the polarizer can do. Normally, it can increase a bit but if you want outstanding blue, you still need PP (which i don't really like because it is a bit fake if the sky is crazy blue)

If you have polarizer filter, it will bring down the exposure as well, which it may possible to slow down your shutter and makes water flows like silk.

you can cut some reflection in the water so that you may able to capture the rocks in the water (only fews is already outstanding)

tonytsang wrote in post #8440595
depend how much the polarizer can do. Normally, it can increase a bit but if you want outstanding blue, you still need PP (which i don't really like because it is a bit fake if the sky is crazy blue)

If you have polarizer filter, it will bring down the exposure as well, which it may possible to slow down your shutter and makes water flows like silk.

you can cut some reflection in the water so that you may able to capture the rocks in the water (only fews is already outstanding)

Thanks!

I was there last week (without a tripod) and it was very cloudy that day, so when I tried slowing down the shutter speed to make the water look silky, the image was out of focus (too slow for handheld). That's what I was trying to do this time around, but it was just way too bright outside to get anything slower than 1/50th.

IVIax wrote in post #8440660
Thanks!

I was there last week (without a tripod) and it was very cloudy that day, so when I tried slowing down the shutter speed to make the water look silky, the image was out of focus (too slow for handheld). That's what I was trying to do this time around, but it was just way too bright outside to get anything slower than 1/50th.

If possible (i know it is hard), do not choose to take landscape picture if it is too bright as it will make the picture looks more smoky ( i hope you can understand what I mean). Most people will take landscape never sunset, or sun rise, or in magic moment ( 30 minutes after sunset)

And if it bright, polarize filter will help you to bring down your shutter speed to 1/30 or something like that

I like the perspective in #1 but would like to see it framed much tighter.

DealsGapCobra wrote in post #8440713
I like the perspective in #1 but would like to see it framed much tighter.

I have one from last week from the same perspective just tighter -- you can see in the lower left edge the side of the cliff that's in the foreground in the first post. (I know it's not as sharp, I know the water color is blown out, I know that the shutter was too slow (even with IS), this is why I came back this week).

Something like this would be more interesting? Or less tight?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Remember that a polarizing filter only helps at certain times. It will always act as a ND filter of some magnitude all the time, yet if the sun is very high in the sky, it will do little else for the photo.

A polarizing filter has it's best effect when the sun is lower in the sky and the sun in oriented at 90 degrees to the direction the camera is pointing. So it may have done little to help the OP's scene and environmental conditions.

I'll add focal point, rule of thirds and depth as some comments for your consideration.

Focal point, choose a subject, a point of interest where the eye can rest and take in the detail as it travels through the photo.

Rule of thirds, is about composition and balance. Look it up on google, loads of info available.

Depth is having decent foreground, middle and background points of interest.

For example, the rocks near your feet, you could choose a large one and use this as a focal point and to add depth by leading you from the rock into the picture.

The horizon is virtually central in all the shots, the rule of thirds would help with balance as the sky does not hold much interest.

Hopefully some info for you to consider and keep shooting and practising.

DealsGapCobra wrote in post #8440713
I like the perspective in #1 but would like to see it framed much tighter.

I agree. +1 to this.

IVIax, what resolution is your camera? If you have enough resolution then you should just crop that first crop. If you frame it so that the right edge of the crop frame is right against the right edge of the frame, the top against the top, and the bottom to bottom, then I think it would look good with an 8x10 ratio (4x5 same thing).

This basically would just make the crop a little tighter, have a great aspect ratio (loveeeeee 8x10 crops), and chop some of the left side of the frame off (less iteresting on the left).

A great image starts with a great capture. There's not a lot to work with here even though the scenery is beautiful. Light is a primary issue. This scene would be better with early or late light, a high res capture, and some fine tuning in the print.

Here is a possibility from one of your images. The mask is crude and the sky is a duplicate of the background multiplied. Curves was used to bump the contrast. Very fast print. I don't spend much time on images like this.

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

rammy -- thanks for the feedback. The reading I've done, it's the application that I'm still working on

Maybe my 1/3rds are different then everyone elses, lol, but the last 3 pictures look like the horizon is in the top 1/3rd and the falls/water are in the bottom 2/3rds. The first one is close to center.

As for focal point, I also feel like the last 3 pictures have some sort of focal point in the foreground -- rocks at the base for pic 2, big rock on the left side for pic 3, and 3 rocks in the water for pic 4. I guess I'm doing it wrong??

DoF, that's what I was going for in pic 3 (maybe unsuccessfully?), I agree that the other 3 pics lack DoF.

AlphaChicken -- 15MP, should be more than enough to just crop out the left side. Is the "zoomed" version in post 9 too tight of a frame from the same perspective (i.e. is it less interesting?).

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

thirds are for the birds ... let the subject frame itself