I spent several hours working the Provo River Falls last week. There are 5 distinct falls plus a large cascade area. I did all of the views I could find with whatever lenses were possible. I may have future posts for the other 5 parts of the falls, but this one is just the last or lower falls.
There are really only two places to view this and I will show them both in two versions each.
The side view required an UWA. I used my 14mm and my 17TSE, which needs a pretty hefty shift down to get the lower part.
Moving downstream, I get a more frontal view and had the choice of 35mm which it pretty tight, and 24mm which covers as much as I think required.
I would like to know which composition is best here.
Note:
I took several different shutter speeds from about 1/5 to 1/25. I preferred closer to 1/10.
These are processed per my faithful look. I can jazz them up and have done that to a couple already. I would like to see which comp first, then I will show other versions of it.
The first one is a side view at 17mm. I like it, but it does not include the entire drop of the falls. Shifting down gets the drop but cuts the top pretty badly as seen in the second.
17 mm unshifted
17mm shifted down to get the lower part of the drop
Here's my take.
#1. My eye is pulled strongly across the falls, mid image, to the dark area under the overhang, far side of the water.
#2 and 3. These feel more dynamic with more of the drop included, a great feel for the rush of water and vertical drop itself. I think #3 is more effective with my eye taking in the drop but still moving again with the water across the image to the bottom left.
#4 and 5. A whole different take here with a nice overview. Of these two, #4 works better for me, keeping me a bit closer to the "action". However in both there is some competition with the bright rock mid-image left side.
So, #3 for me.
AuntiPode wrote:
Is that a pipe or a railing of some sort. Generally such a man-made object is considered to spoil a natural scene.
Hi Aunti. Its a dead tree, visible as such at 100%. And of course there are a few standing dead trees too. One of the sad facts of life in most of the west.
Scott. In retrospect, I should have shot for a stitch on that second shot. In fact I am going to see if I can't stitch the first two and get a bit more head room above the water.
Here is a stitch of the two side view 17mm shots. They stitched like a dream, hardly any waste at crop. But I am not fond of square aspects. What I needed was a 14 TSE.
Not a fan of the sky in the images, so it helps to not have them present IMHO. I might prefer your last overall if you cropped the sky out. I like #2 as well, but it is perhaps a little too tight on the top. Hope my thoughts help - Paul
Thanks, I had the same thought about cropping, but decided to show the whole available size and let you guys have a shot at it. I wish I could crop out that dead standing tree at the left, but it takes too much water out. I probably need to leave some sky.
I go back & forth @ 35mm vs. maybe the 24. They bring the action "to you" front & center. The others are running diagonally "by you" ... chasing you out of the frame as you try to follow the water. The former provides you a "landing spot" once the white water hits the dark pool.
I actually much prefer your last one, the stitched version, and I like the inclusion of the sky. Why, because it looks odd in the ones where the trees are cropped, I like to see them more, might like to have seen them top out, so they were not cropped at all. I typically also like 1 second or more on water, but I agree with your assessment, that for this scene, the 1/8 and 1/10 look really nice.
RustyBug wrote:
I go back & forth @ 35mm vs. maybe the 24. They bring the action "to you" front & center. The others are running diagonally "by you" ... chasing you out of the frame as you try to follow the water. The former provides you a "landing spot" once the white water hits the dark pool.
Thanks Rusty. Last year I did not have the front shots and others have complained about side shots of falls. This is exactly why I did these. This is a place near enough to home that I can do it in a day trip. But the road is not open until early summer. I would like to get up here next summer as soon as the road opens. Knowing in advance the best composition is helpful.
Also next year I hope to have a 24-70 zoom so that I have more framing options.
Travis Rhoads wrote:
I actually much prefer your last one, the stitched version, and I like the inclusion of the sky. Why, because it looks odd in the ones where the trees are cropped, I like to see them more, might like to have seen them top out, so they were not cropped at all. I typically also like 1 second or more on water, but I agree with your assessment, that for this scene, the 1/8 and 1/10 look really nice.
Thanks Travis. I too like that version other than the odd aspect ratio. If only I had taken some more images to broaden the stitch.
Lovely shots as always, Ben. I like #1 and #3, and I'm looking forward to your shots of the other sections of the falls.
I was at Provo Falls in late June, and it looks like the water is flowing just as strongly now as then. I thought it might be a bit dried up by now but it's still looking good. How I wish I was back there!
Hi, I will show the others, maybe starting today. I noticed some brown in the water and a much higher flow than the same date a year ago which as you know was a much wetter year.
I also saw that the empoundment lakes upstream were empty, so I think they were recharging the lower dams.
I am attempting to figure out how to shot this area. The dead trees make it difficult to get the pristine look we always seek. I think I had pretty good light this time as I could get 1/10 second without using filters and also avoided blowing the sky.
It might be nice to try a sunrise shot here. It would take a good deal of luck to get some cloud color however.
