A bit to close on some of those? Must be difficult though with them bouncing through the rapids. The last one looks money. Would it be better with a 70-200 hand held on the edge of the water?
Nowhere Man:
Well, you're right, there are lots of ways to shoot something like this. Unfortunately, river-level access was near-impossible, and I'm on crutches with a broken foot right now, so I didn't have the ideal shooting location. Thus, my approach was to shoot tight and go for expression and pose instead of photos with more context.
rongoe wrote:
Cool and crisp, but I would have preferred the perspective offered by a bare 300 to get more context.
Thanks! If I'd been able to get access to a spot with a better angle without breaking additional bones in my body , I'd have shot it at 200, but I was kind of in no-man's land.
Nowhere Man:
Well, you're right, there are lots of ways to shoot something like this. Unfortunately, river-level access was near-impossible, and I'm on crutches with a broken foot right now, so I didn't have the ideal shooting location. Thus, my approach was to shoot tight and go for expression and pose instead of photos with more context.
You got your point and I find the photos express a lot more intensity with tighter crop.
