First waterfall shots + two others

Quick background: I'm taking an intro to dig. photog. class this semester and the cinema department has access to some equipment. I borrowed a tripod (now I have a better idea of what I want in a tripod [Ie. removable head and ball tilting lol]) and was eager to try out some slow shutter speed.

I wish I had some ND filters but alas I tried my best w/o them

I'd really like a lot of critique please!

Here they are:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Exif is gone, what was the ss in the waterfall shots? The first one looks overexposed to me, second is much better. Pretty good for no nd filters!

Thanks,
both were 1.6 seconds

first two were taken with the 17-55 and last two with the canon 50 1.4

I loooooove #3 so much. Amazing. The bokeh is orgasmic. I just don't really like that smaller blue flare on the leaf. I think it takes away from it a little.

Do you have EXIF?

great stuff! rock on and take you camera everywhere!

2, 3, & 4 are very nice!

#1 looks like HDR or slightly overprocessed? Nice work.

Thanks for all the comments. With #3 I didn't know what those lines were but later realized it was spider webs. I wish the flare wasn't there

The EXIF should be available now (changed setting on flickr).

Very nice!

The colors are great. A longer exposure would have smoothed out the pools of water more. I suggest at least using a polarizer (2 stops for about 4s).

I find the 2 waterfall photos to have too much contrast. The histogram is slammed against both the left and right sides which indicate blown highlights and no detail black shadows. Be mindful of the histogram as you develop your photos.

GorgeShooter wrote in post #8625713
The colors are great. A longer exposure would have smoothed out the pools of water more. I suggest at least using a polarizer (2 stops for about 4s).

That's all a matter of opinion. Many prefer water shutter speeds of 1/8 second. Plus amount of water flowing (its rate of flow) has an effect on how long a shutter speed is needed.

Nice shots. The first one has so much potential with the layers/lines in the rock all leading down to a ring of water in the corner.

Thank you all for the comments so far - I will be revisiting this place, hopefully with some filters in hand

The second shot is probably the best composition. A few things would really punch it up a bit. First, I'd like to see a bit more detail in the foreground rock faces...too much is lost in the shadows. Second, a good polarizer will eliminate the glare from the rocks on the right side of the frame.

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #8628219
That's all a matter of opinion. Many prefer water shutter speeds of 1/8 second. Plus amount of water flowing (its rate of flow) has an effect on how long a shutter speed is needed.

I said nothing about the water flowing over the falls. I was talking about the water IN the pools. The ONLY way to smooth of those areas is with longer shutter speeds. I was only giving a suggestion on how to do that. Yes, shutter speed does depend on MANY factors...one being the amount of water flowing. But these particular falls have relatively low water flow and (IMO) require a far slower ss than 1/8. In fact (IMO again) those waterfalls could have been shot with a very slow shutter. (30s or more).