06 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Tirau DanThat's exactly why I liked your pictures and why I gave you 6 points for one of them. It's also why 'Leaf on Rock' was not on my list. I usually prefer more natural-looking pictures. (There are exceptions - sometimes I like a picture because of its painting-like quality, like "Surat Bay" or your "Coppermine Sunset" in the first round.) What puzzles me is that most people seem to prefer natural-looking pictures in most of the cases, but when it comes to waterfalls, most people seem to prefer those long exposures which wash out the sparkling and vibrancy. I have also seen a book on waterfalls and waterfall photography which recommended long exposures. This has made me wonder whether I actually see waterfalls differently than most people. Any thoughts?
I took the angle that the subject was moving water (not still water). I wanted to photograph a celebration of the vibrancy and colour of moving water rather than use a slow exposure and stop the water movement.
I was a bit disappointed that my third picture, "Cascadilla Falls", didn't get any votes. I didn't expect any of my pictures to get very many votes because none of them is great, but of my three pictures, "Cascadilla Falls" is the one I definitely like best. I wonder if a longer exposure would have made it more popular (although I would have liked it less myself), or whether there are other things about it which people don't like or which just make it boring. Critical comments are welcome.
The picture I clearly liked best was "Las Cataratas". The exposure is just right for my taste, it's not washed out, but not "frozen" either (which happens if you have a very short exposure time - that can look fascinating, but it doesn't look natural either). The picture has a lot of depth, and the plants in the foreground give a nice frame. Good work! BTW, where is that, Ragnorak?
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by NordlysLonger exposures tend to allow you to capture the sense of motion in the water. It's kinda' like photographing a sprinter. If your main focus is on the runner, you'll probably use a very short exposure in order to emphasize the runner's physical aspects - you'll probably end up with very little depth of field which keeps the background from distracting the eye away from the runner. If you're photographing the runner in a larger context that's important, the sense of movement becomes more important and you'll probably use a longer exposure that increases your depth of field and places the runner in the greater context of the setting - he'll be blurred just a little so that the viewer gets the sense of motion.
That's exactly why I liked your pictures and why I gave you 6 points for one of them. It's also why 'Leaf on Rock' was not on my list. I usually prefer more natural-looking pictures. (There are exceptions - sometimes I like a picture because of its painting-like quality, like "Surat Bay" or your "Coppermine Sunset" in the first round.) What puzzles m ...[text shortened]... th, and the plants in the foreground give a nice frame. Good work! BTW, where is that, Ragnorak?
With moving water, if your main point of focus in on the actual drops of water, you can take a very short exposure and get creative with the water drops - like capturing the spray from a breaking wave. If you're trying to set the water in a larger context, or if it's complimentary to the photo (like leaf on rock), then you can lengthen the exposure and soften the water's appearance.
I took probably a dozen different exposures of lower calf creek falls, and the short ones just don't have the same impact as the longer ones. That tends to be true of most waterfall photos - I think it's because a waterfall isn't static, it's moving, and the longer photo gives you the sense of motion.
However, to each his own.
Regarding Cascadilla Falls, I'm not quite sure how to describe my reaction to it other than to say it feels "flat." I would suggest playing with it in photoshop to see if you can zip up the contrast a little bit (scanners can be notorious for sucking the life out of a photo, particularly if you're using slide film). One other thing you can try is cropping off the top 1/4 or so of the photo, and maybe a little of the bottom - the sky and trees at the top of the photo are mainly distractions and don't add a lot of interest to the picture. I wouldn't argue with your length of exposure, but I might suggest a different time of day for the photo. High overhead sunlight seldom works well for nature photos. Just some thoughts.
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by Tirau DanYou did a great job of capturing the power of the moving water! The reason your photos didn't make it on to my list is that they looked less like works of art and more like vacation snapshots. (ouch, that sounds much harsher that I intend it to be) Let me see if I can explain it better....
I took the angle that the subject was moving water (not still water). I wanted to photograph a celebration of the vibrancy and colour of moving water rather than use a slow exposure and stop the water movement. I'll know in future this isn't popular.
Well done to all.
Let's look at Huka Fall #1, which I thought was the best of the three. Boom! The water is there - it's massive, it's powerful, it has depth and color. Great so far, what else does the photo have? Well....not much. The greenery and rocks, which could be quite nice, are somewhat underexposed, dull and lifeless. The colors are flat, and there's too little contrast. Here are a few suggestions. Try the same photo either early in the morning or late in the day (sunrise, sunset) - the colors will be far more interesting. Use a better film, slide films are the best - if you're using a digital camera, beats me, the only digitial I have is a cheapy point and shoot - slower films (100 speed or slower), usually have a better color saturation. Work the photo in your darkroom (photoshop for most of us these days). I don't think a lot of folks realize just how important this aspect is to great photography. I remember seeing in a book about Anselm Adams two looks at one of his most famous photos of Yosemite valley - the raw photo, and the final darkroom edition. The first was a nice photo, the second was a world-famous work of art. For your photo, you could try dodging and burning to increase the brightness/contrast of the non-water portions of the photo.
Hope that helps, and I hope I made it clear that I think the Huka race and falls are pretty impressive - thanks for the efforts to share those with us.
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by The PlumberThat's what I don't understand. That is, I understand what you are saying and there's some logic in it, but it's not my impression when I see the pictures. For me, long exposures look more static. You are right about very short exposures, though - as I mentioned in my post, those look kind of frozen. Quite fascinating and exciting, but unnatural. But if I had to choose between very short and very long exposure times, I'd always go for very short. Between very short and so long that it looks natural, I'd usually go for the natural one, although it can be a somewhat difficult decision.
Longer exposures tend to allow you to capture the sense of motion in the water.
Thanks for the comments on my picture. It is already cropped a bit, and I tried cropping more, but didn't like it. You are probably right about the lighting. I guess the lighting is the biggest problem if you don't have a lot of time and can't go to the waterfall whenever the lighting is best. When I took that picture, the conditions were still a lot better than most other times I tried to take pictures of waterfalls.
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by NordlysThanks.
The picture I clearly liked best was "Las Cataratas". The exposure is just right for my taste, it's not washed out, but not "frozen" either (which happens if you have a very short exposure time - that can look fascinating, but it doesn't look natural either). The picture has a lot of depth, and the plants in the foreground give a nice frame. Good work! BTW, where is that, Ragnorak?
9. Iguazu Falls, 12. Las Cataratas, 18. Tranquility and 25. Strength are all shots of Iguazu Falls, which are located where the Brazillian, Argentine and Paraguay borders meet.
Peaceful borders (from Sunrise/Sunset) was taken in the same general area.
I REALLY liked Las Cataratas myself, but Tirau Dan thought the frame was too big, the sticky thing in the middle ruined it, and that the falls were too out of focus due to the frame being in focus. I can completely see his points, but am still quite happy with the piccy.
D
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by The PlumberDo you have a link to a long exposure shot and a short exposure shot, so we can compare?
I took probably a dozen different exposures of lower calf creek falls, and the short ones just don't have the same impact as the longer ones.
I really like the long exposured waterfall shots, and only wish I had that function to play around with on my point and shoot camera when visiting Iguazu Falls.
D
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by RagnorakUnfortunately not. I use slide film and do my photo selection from viewing the slides. Once I decide which is th best, I scan that one in, and modify as needed in Photoshop (which can sometimes be a lengthy process - trying to balance enhancing a photo without making it look "processed" can be a dicey proposition). I am so far behind in scanning photos that I actually want to scan, that I don't have time to scan a photo that I'm not going to use. So many pictures, so little time....
Do you have a link to a long exposure shot and a short exposure shot, so we can compare?
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by The PlumberGreat pics all around but Fountains is quite an amazing photo, IMHO. Sorry to see it didn't make the top three.
Unfortunately not. I use slide film and do my photo selection from viewing the slides. Once I decide which is th best, I scan that one in, and modify as needed in Photoshop (which can sometimes be a lengthy process - trying to balance enhancing a photo without making it look "processed" can be a dicey proposition). I am so far behind in scanning pho ...[text shortened]... n't have time to scan a photo that I'm not going to use. So many pictures, so little time....
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by RagnorakI agree it would have been better without the sticky thing in the middle, although I wouldn't go so far to say it ruined the picture. The "out-of-focusness" didn't bother me at all. In fact it added to the feeling of depth, and the nearest waterfalls were sharp enough for my taste. Maybe that's because I am short-sighted, so this is what the world actually looks like to me, especially if I haven't got new glasses in a while. 😉 (I am only half joking here.)
I REALLY liked Las Cataratas myself, but Tirau Dan thought the frame was too big, the sticky thing in the middle ruined it, and that the falls were too out of focus due to the frame being in focus. I can completely see his points, but am still quite happy with the piccy.
D
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by NordlysThanks Plumby.. great comments. I used 64 asa chrome film but concentrated on the water only. Totally misjudged the subject.. "moving water". I went for the sharp focus and contrast in the water itself. If you look at commercial webshots stock photos of falls they are all slow exposure fairy like arty scenes and think some of those should be paintings. Few commercial shots if any, have sharp water. The straw poll here shows they are what people like. None of them have anything in the shot obscurring the falls..
I agree it would have been better without the sticky thing in the middle, although I wouldn't go so far to say it ruined the picture. The "out-of-focusness" didn't bother me at all. In fact it added to the feeling of depth, and the nearest waterfalls were sharp enough for my taste. Maybe that's because I am short-sighted, so this is what the world actua ...[text shortened]... ke to me, especially if I haven't got new glasses in a while. 😉 (I am only half joking here.)
It was a nice day out... picked up a crazy hitch hiker too - never again!!! got rid of the smelly nutter ..
06 Jul 05
Originally posted by Tirau DanLuckily I am not a professional photographer, so I don't have to worry about what sells. If other people like my pictures, that's great. But I don't try to take popular pictures, I try to take pictures I like myself. And if I am truly happy with a picture, it's very likely that *someone* else will also like it, even if it's not popular. Of course I try to get better, and I am glad about advice. But if the advice would make the pictures more popular, but less to my own liking, I won't follow it. So I will continue to take shorter exposures of waterfalls. And I hope I am not the only one, so that I can enjoy other pictures, too. 🙂
Thanks Plumby.. great comments. I used 64 asa chrome film but concentrated on the water only. Totally misjudged the subject.. "moving water". I went for the sharp focus and contrast in the water itself. If you look at commercial webshots stock photos of falls they are all slow exposure fairy like arty scenes and think some of those should be painting ...[text shortened]... ... picked up a crazy hitch hiker too - never again!!! got rid of the smelly nutter ..
07 Jul 05
Well I'm happy with a 9th place. Perhaps, with a do over, I'd crop the picture tighter on the right and resize it myself. I think it suffered a little from that (not that I'm blaming you Rag).
I also just thought I'd chime in with kudos to the Plumber, Leaf on a Rock is stunning. Not to detract from the other amazing photos in the competition.
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI uploaded all pics checking the option "Resize to Screen". Do you think the quality of your pic suffered as a result? I've had a look at the 1 u sent me, and the 1 on the site and can't see a difference, but if you think so, then, in future, I'll upload the pics without checking that option.
I think it suffered a little from that (not that I'm blaming you Rag).
D
07 Jul 05
Originally posted by RagnorakMaybe I'm just imagining it.
I uploaded all pics checking the option "Resize to Screen". Do you think the quality of your pic suffered as a result? I've had a look at the 1 u sent me, and the 1 on the site and can't see a difference, but if you think so, then, in future, I'll upload the pics without checking that option.
D