Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · YAW - II

  
 
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · YAW - II


Obviously I have copied Johnontheroads title. Yet Another Waterfall. I have tried many times and for me most of the results are more like YAWN. The first few times I got that silky appearance of strands of water, I was happy. That quickly turned to boredom.

Yesterday I tried again at shooting a waterfall. I went for a bit less of the silky appearance and more crispness. I also tried to bring in other elements: rocks, flowers, a puddle, etc. Maybe I now have too little waterfall and too much other stuff. ??







Aug 04, 2014 at 12:45 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · YAW - II


Ahh waterfalls. I also prefer some detail to the silky look which was a fad in the 80's and soon done to death.

You have good light, a good composition, good detail and good processing. You avoided the dreaded light patch of sky that often sits on top of the falls and is usually pure white.

My only nit, and this is because I do lots of waterfalls is that it appears to be very low flow. I suspect that in the spring this is a torrent.

I like the flowers.



Aug 04, 2014 at 12:50 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · YAW - II


I'm gonna have to agree with most of what Ben said. Very pretty scene overall, but my eyes are naturally drawn to the lower portion of the shot. Unfortunately there isn't enough down there to keep my interest for very long.

Don't get me wrong, I *like* it, just don't love it.

This shot would make for a great motivational poster!

Jeff



Aug 04, 2014 at 02:26 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · YAW - II


Unfortunately my image does not emphasize the waterfall. The flow of water was actually pretty decent. To put objects in perspective: the puddle is probably about 10" and the waterfall drops about 30 feet. This is a 5 shot stitch with an UWA lens. Of course the lens was close to the puddle.

I guess I was concerned about too much foreground and too little waterfall. It appears you have the same opinion and the object of the image should emphasize the waterfall.



Aug 04, 2014 at 02:33 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · YAW - II


Jeff, thanks for also confirming Ben's observations. Having your eyes drawn down from the waterfall to the puddle was planned. I then hoped your eyes would be drawn to the flowers, the next higher patch of flowers, the rock and returning to the waterfall. At least that was my intent with the off center composition and the dodge and burn areas. I was hoping to have several interesting elements beside just a plain waterfall. I guess I ended up with too many elements and not enough size or emphasis on the waterfall as the center of interest.


Aug 04, 2014 at 03:21 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · YAW - II


Here is a different image for comparison. This is a more traditional image with clear emphasis on the waterfall. It does not seem that interesting to me which is why I included the other elements in the first image.







Aug 04, 2014 at 04:05 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · YAW - II


I think I prefer the first. But I have never been enthusiastic about single subject lack of clutter in landscapes. (meaning your first was ok with me)

But with that in mind and given that this is a multi shot image, you could isolate just the upper falls and cut out or minimize that rock to the right. I would also lose some of that recovered sky peeking through the trees at the top.



Aug 04, 2014 at 04:17 PM
DianeinCR
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · YAW - II


I agree that the first is more appealing to me, and largely because I do not view it as a waterfall shot. I see it more as a puddle of water, rocks, flowers, and light reflections.

I am not a fan of the smooth water in waterfall shots that so many others seem to require. I do not see water that way and rarely appreciate a photo that depicts water falling as smooth.

I can't help but wondering what the waterfall looks like from a side angle? I can't really get a sense of it's scale from the shots. How are does it cascade from the rock? Or is it running over them fairly closely?



Aug 05, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · YAW - II


There is no sense of scale because both of these images intentionally distort reality. The foreground objects are relatively huge when compared to the main waterfall. I liked the puddle and flowers and I turned the waterfall into more of a backdrop instead of the subject.


Aug 05, 2014 at 11:31 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · YAW - II


Camperjim wrote:
I liked the puddle and flowers and I turned the waterfall into more of a backdrop instead of the subject.


Understanding which is your intended subject/message ... a bit of a crop to re-weight the scale/mass relationship between them @ primary/secondary. For me, the image is the puddle and the inclusion of the waterfall is the answer to the unasked question of where did the water come from as it plays off the reflection of the clouds in the sky. Add in the flowers and you kind of have a mini-eco-system in a neat little package.

“A photograph is usually looked at – seldom looked into.” – Ansel Adams

My take on this is that all too often folks don't really look into an image (both when taking/making & viewing). I think this one is one that you look more "into" than "at" and imo, Jim had much more of the "into" part (than the "at" part) in his vision.

A couple versions for consideration (and a mono experi-play). Might want to play with the crop a bit more to refine to taste, but hopefully you get the gist at the diff it can make.

















Aug 05, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Johnontheroad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · YAW - II


When I first look at this image, my eyes get drawn to the top. Then to the bottom. Then they wander to the middle, which has less features than either the top or the bottom. So for me this image is OK after I look at it for a while but my initial impression is "what's that?"

This is especially true for the B&W which lacks any visual clues as to what it is. Only because I first saw the color version did I know what it was.

The Rule of Thirds, the Golden Rule, whatever seems to imply one central message in an image and these look like there are 2 1/2.

Just the thoughts from a very inexperienced amateur photographer....

== John



Aug 06, 2014 at 06:41 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · YAW - II


Kent, knowingly or not, you gave me a pat on the back. One of my main goals as a photographer is to pull the viewer into the scene. That can be a vague concept to describe and even more difficult to execute. Often that can mean emphasizing a few small elements in a bigger world. John, I think you are describing the same concept. This was not a nicely composed image of a waterfall but something different. Certainly this is not a great or compelling image but to me it was just another small step in setting my style and goals. Thanks for the comments


Aug 06, 2014 at 10:22 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · YAW - II


John,

Your points at the B&W version are some of the challenges for the image. I didn't really get the tonal value relationships worked through to strengthen certain areas that need more help (and I got lazy then). I was trying a new technique, but this may not have been the best image (in some areas) for it. Thanks for the perspective.

Also, I think you bring up an interesting point @ central message vs. 2 1/2. Pondering that a bit, I suspect the central perspective/approach lends itself better to a unified message that may be more in the camp of "looked at", while those images that aspire to be more in the camp of "looked into" do often have a non-centralized message presentation.

I know that many of my images that have "more than one thing to consider" are often met with lackluster appeal, except for those who really enjoy looking deeper into (which honestly, most folks don't) images.

Jim,

The pat was "intended", as that's how I saw the image.

Also, your point at multiple small vs. singular large can be one form of balance ... albeit a delicate one to pull off at times. One of my goals for images can be "I want to show you something" like so many of us aspire to do. But, extending that just a touch I sometimes have an added perspective of "that you may have never thought to see" ... which can often times be some of those "smaller" pieces.

I know that it can be met with folks still not seeing it because of it's non-conformity to convention of what they might be expecting, but I think that goes to AA's point @ "looked at" vs. "looked into". Which, kinda goes along with his other point @ "two people" in the photograph. We have some control over the one, maybe not as much over the other.

I must admit, that until I saw one of his exhibits in person ... I viewed his work with more of a "looked at" than a "looked into". That's not to say that every image is (or should be) a "looked into" image, but for me, your mini-eco-system is a "looked into" kind of image.



Aug 06, 2014 at 11:24 AM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.