Landscape Vetter Falls

shadowsonoureyes · 01-16-2014, 12:52 PM - **1 Like**

Just wanted to share this here to see what others may have done differently with this image.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

TonyTurley · 01-16-2014, 01:40 PM

Very nice. That is beautiful.

Tony

shadowsonoureyes · 01-16-2014, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by TonyTurley

Very nice. That is beautiful.

Tony

Thanks Tony. Do you see anything you would do differently here? I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

TonyTurley · 01-16-2014, 05:09 PM

I don't see a thing wrong with your photo. I'd be quite happy if I took this.

Tony

camerons · 01-16-2014, 05:35 PM

I also think it is a very good shot. Great use of the wide angle. I'm scraping the barrel to come up with anything to say but here goes.

The greens look a little oversaturated maybe. Did you boost this? Or is that just from the polariser? I don't really like the tree on left in the foreground, but it doesn't look like much could be done about that without changing the composition significantly (which I like a lot). The trees and leaves up and around the top are also a bit muddy (texture wise) but this might just be a limitation of the lens or from motion blur due to the exposure length. It would be nice if there was a bit more defined texture in these.

Maybe try cropping a bit off the bottom below that log. Maybe a bit more space to the right of the second waterfall would have been good too. Then a panoramic crop. These are more just alternatives than comments about anything wrong with this image though.

Dr Orloff · 01-16-2014, 05:50 PM

It's a perfectly nice scene. The secondary waterfall is a little close ot the edge of the frame and I'm not sure it is a necessary element to the image. The main thing I would do differently is to try a shutter speed that would give a bit more definition in the water movement which I think is too amorphous. I would look at a speed of 1/3 second, maybe a litle faster. I also think the whites look too dull.

causey · 01-16-2014, 06:32 PM

to answer your question: nothing. the image is great.

**RGlasel** · 01-16-2014, 08:45 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by shadowsonoureyes

what others may have done differently with this image

Here's what I did, and I like yours much better. When I was there in 2012, the creek was flooding and I couldn't get as close as you did. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. Seriously, I like yours much better.

**RGlasel** · 01-16-2014, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by shadowsonoureyes

I was hoping for some constructive criticism

I know it's all the rage, but the long shutter speeds for blurred water isn't my cup of tea. My only criticism is that you could have done something more uncommon with the water. I really like the way using a wide focal length brings the wood and moss on the left side to prominence to give some depth or 3-D feel to the entire frame. I have to start trying that myself. If you are able to select what time you take the picture, you might be able to get sunlight on the rocks or some trees up front, or if you like the effect of bright regions of the background contrasting with shaded regions in the foreground, you might want to take this shot later or earlier in the day. Or not, taking this picture at high noon puts spots of bright light on the foliage in the middle, and produces some nice shadows in the foreground on the left side. When I took my shot, we were driving back to Terrace and I was already losing good light with the sun getting low in the west. Oh, I also like the proportioning of your picture with the falls moving from far left to the right side of the middle third of the frame. Using the widest focal length of your lens also allowed you to get most of the mini-falls on the right in the frame.

shadowsonoureyes · 01-17-2014, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by camerons

I also think it is a very good shot. Great use of the wide angle. I'm scraping the barrel to come up with anything to say but here goes.

The greens look a little oversaturated maybe. Did you boost this? Or is that just from the polariser? I don't really like the tree on left in the foreground, but it doesn't look like much could be done about that without changing the composition significantly (which I like a lot). The trees and leaves up and around the top are also a bit muddy (texture wise) but this might just be a limitation of the lens or from motion blur due to the exposure length. It would be nice if there was a bit more defined texture in these.

Maybe try cropping a bit off the bottom below that log. Maybe a bit more space to the right of the second waterfall would have been good too. Then a panoramic crop. These are more just alternatives than comments about anything wrong with this image though.

Thanks for the suggestions Cameron. I think when processing I found that the vibrant green looked a little better with the bluish colour of the water so I may have been led to boost it a bit more than needed. I did use a polarizing filter as well which may have contributed but it could certainly have been left as it was or played down a bit. The composition was about as good as I could get it without waders but I do like the suggestion to try a shot without the tree trunk and possibly more of the adjacent falls as well. I did try cropping some below the log but then you also lose the flow of the water across the frame. I appreciated the feedback!

Originally posted by Dr Orloff

It's a perfectly nice scene. The secondary waterfall is a little close ot the edge of the frame and I'm not sure it is a necessary element to the image. The main thing I would do differently is to try a shutter speed that would give a bit more definition in the water movement which I think is too amorphous. I would look at a speed of 1/3 second, maybe a litle faster. I also think the whites look too dull.

I like your suggestion about trying a slightly faster shutter. I get caught up trying to get the super silky feel but forget that I lose some of the texture. This could help make the whites looks less dull perhaps.

Originally posted by causey

to answer your question: nothing. the image is great.

Thanks for the comment Causey,

Originally posted by RGlasel

I know it's all the rage, but the long shutter speeds for blurred water isn't my cup of tea. My only criticism is that you could have done something more uncommon with the water. I really like the way using a wide focal length brings the wood and moss on the left side to prominence to give some depth or 3-D feel to the entire frame. I have to start trying that myself. If you are able to select what time you take the picture, you might be able to get sunlight on the rocks or some trees up front, or if you like the effect of bright regions of the background contrasting with shaded regions in the foreground, you might want to take this shot later or earlier in the day. Or not, taking this picture at high noon puts spots of bright light on the foliage in the middle, and produces some nice shadows in the foreground on the left side. When I took my shot, we were driving back to Terrace and I was already losing good light with the sun getting low in the west. Oh, I also like the proportioning of your picture with the falls moving from far left to the right side of the middle third of the frame. Using the widest focal length of your lens also allowed you to get most of the mini-falls on the right in the frame.

I like the moss and roots on the left side as well. Seems to add perspective and depth to the image. The timing is very important here. The forest is pretty thick but the creek is widest right at the base of these falls (actually three sets but only two can be shown at once with 18mm) so the high sun can obliterate the scene at midday. This was closer to the evening which is why the trees in the background (looking east) were picking up some strong light from the sun as it moved to the west.

CreationBear · 01-17-2014, 03:47 PM

This might seem strange, but for me the focal point of the image is the downed tree limbs in the lower righthand corner. I might try cropping the top 1/4th or so of the image, so that you lose the horizon and the very top of the big falls--but keep the pretty light on the tree trunk and the secondary falls in its entirety. That would also let the sawn log on the lefthand margin of the picture contribute to a "story" --I understand the current need for something to anchor that expanse of swirling water, but for me it's a bit too busy and filigreed to perform that function.

At any rate, it's a lovely landscape to explore--you could spend a lot of time mining all the facets...though hopefully with a WR lens.

nomadkng · 01-20-2014, 02:10 PM

the first thing I noticed was the considerable distortion of the tree along the left edge. it tends give pause to the scene as we naturally scan left to right, so I try to be very cognizant of any subject along left side of an image.
I think the empty space just before the curved tree, gives the feeling of the right side being cut off, and from what I can tell, the secondary waterfall would be much more interesting than the tree anyway.
you can get silky water with an ND filter so you don't have to stop down to f18. a 2 stop ND is a great companion for waterfall images

I haven't been there so I can't say definitively, but if the water depth and flow was not too great, setting up your tripod about 6 inches into the creek (one leg) to the right, would have given you a more face on view of the main falls, allowed you to remove some of the bank in bottom left and possibly brought in the right falls a little more. as it stands, the left inch or so adds no value to the scene

I've mentioned this on a couple other images from others, when you have the large amount of distortion that you get at 18mm with this lens, you are better off shooting at about 30mm and stitching together 4ish or so images to get a flatter field, or use the distortion to your creative advantage and try angles from another perspective, perhaps.

the greens look great to me, but the exposure might be 1/3-1/2 under exposed because the peak values look a tad blue to me. that might give you a little extra pop to work with and allow some contrast into the scene

BossyJace · 01-25-2014, 02:13 PM

I love it, the blurred water adds so much interest to a landscape.

Scootatheschool1990 · 02-18-2014, 03:33 PM

Hey, I did a little editing. The image is awesome. You have an eye for a good photo. I simply edited with luminosity masks. (From Tony Kuyper webiste and Chip Phillips videos)

I'll share the link to the PSD when it's finished uploading.

**MSL** · 02-18-2014, 10:56 PM

People have picked up on elements here and there, from the distortion to the greens and whether slow water works or not. All valid points but somehow they come together to make a very good image. I supposed it might have been interesting to take one at a much shorter shutter speed for comparison - you have an interesting scene there that doesn't necessarily need the blurred water effect.

Originally posted by nomadkng

I've mentioned this on a couple other images from others, when you have the large amount of distortion that you get at 18mm with this lens, you are better off shooting at about 30mm and stitching together 4ish or so images to get a flatter field, or use the distortion to your creative advantage and try angles from another perspective, perhaps.

This sounds like a lot of work, especially as you need to get the 4 images to mesh properly. Is there no other way to minimize or at least reduce the distortion?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vetter Falls	shadowsonoureyes	Monthly Photo Contests	0	01-09-2014 08:56 PM
Travel the Falls@Idaho Falls	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	17	08-29-2012 11:36 PM
Travel the Falls@Great Falls, Montana	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	21	07-28-2012 10:43 PM
Landscape Erskine Falls	Cee Cee	Post Your Photos!	4	05-05-2012 03:25 PM
Nature Vetter Falls	outkast2k5	Post Your Photos!	3	09-18-2011 03:41 PM

01-16-2014, 01:40 PM	#2
TonyTurley Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Scott Depot, WV Posts: 1,240	Very nice. That is beautiful. Tony

01-16-2014, 02:21 PM	#3
shadowsonoureyes Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: British Columbia Posts: 137 Original Poster	Originally posted by TonyTurley Very nice. That is beautiful. Tony Thanks Tony. Do you see anything you would do differently here? I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

01-16-2014, 05:09 PM	#4
TonyTurley Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Scott Depot, WV Posts: 1,240	I don't see a thing wrong with your photo. I'd be quite happy if I took this. Tony

01-16-2014, 05:35 PM	#5
camerons Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Posts: 243	I also think it is a very good shot. Great use of the wide angle. I'm scraping the barrel to come up with anything to say but here goes. The greens look a little oversaturated maybe. Did you boost this? Or is that just from the polariser? I don't really like the tree on left in the foreground, but it doesn't look like much could be done about that without changing the composition significantly (which I like a lot). The trees and leaves up and around the top are also a bit muddy (texture wise) but this might just be a limitation of the lens or from motion blur due to the exposure length. It would be nice if there was a bit more defined texture in these. Maybe try cropping a bit off the bottom below that log. Maybe a bit more space to the right of the second waterfall would have been good too. Then a panoramic crop. These are more just alternatives than comments about anything wrong with this image though.

01-16-2014, 05:50 PM	#6
Dr Orloff Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Brighton, England Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 512	It's a perfectly nice scene. The secondary waterfall is a little close ot the edge of the frame and I'm not sure it is a necessary element to the image. The main thing I would do differently is to try a shutter speed that would give a bit more definition in the water movement which I think is too amorphous. I would look at a speed of 1/3 second, maybe a litle faster. I also think the whites look too dull.

01-16-2014, 06:32 PM	#7
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	to answer your question: nothing. the image is great.

01-16-2014, 10:02 PM	#9
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,229	Originally posted by shadowsonoureyes I was hoping for some constructive criticism I know it's all the rage, but the long shutter speeds for blurred water isn't my cup of tea. My only criticism is that you could have done something more uncommon with the water. I really like the way using a wide focal length brings the wood and moss on the left side to prominence to give some depth or 3-D feel to the entire frame. I have to start trying that myself. If you are able to select what time you take the picture, you might be able to get sunlight on the rocks or some trees up front, or if you like the effect of bright regions of the background contrasting with shaded regions in the foreground, you might want to take this shot later or earlier in the day. Or not, taking this picture at high noon puts spots of bright light on the foliage in the middle, and produces some nice shadows in the foreground on the left side. When I took my shot, we were driving back to Terrace and I was already losing good light with the sun getting low in the west. Oh, I also like the proportioning of your picture with the falls moving from far left to the right side of the middle third of the frame. Using the widest focal length of your lens also allowed you to get most of the mini-falls on the right in the frame.

01-17-2014, 10:25 AM	#10
shadowsonoureyes Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: British Columbia Posts: 137 Original Poster	Originally posted by camerons I also think it is a very good shot. Great use of the wide angle. I'm scraping the barrel to come up with anything to say but here goes. The greens look a little oversaturated maybe. Did you boost this? Or is that just from the polariser? I don't really like the tree on left in the foreground, but it doesn't look like much could be done about that without changing the composition significantly (which I like a lot). The trees and leaves up and around the top are also a bit muddy (texture wise) but this might just be a limitation of the lens or from motion blur due to the exposure length. It would be nice if there was a bit more defined texture in these. Maybe try cropping a bit off the bottom below that log. Maybe a bit more space to the right of the second waterfall would have been good too. Then a panoramic crop. These are more just alternatives than comments about anything wrong with this image though. Thanks for the suggestions Cameron. I think when processing I found that the vibrant green looked a little better with the bluish colour of the water so I may have been led to boost it a bit more than needed. I did use a polarizing filter as well which may have contributed but it could certainly have been left as it was or played down a bit. The composition was about as good as I could get it without waders but I do like the suggestion to try a shot without the tree trunk and possibly more of the adjacent falls as well. I did try cropping some below the log but then you also lose the flow of the water across the frame. I appreciated the feedback! Originally posted by Dr Orloff It's a perfectly nice scene. The secondary waterfall is a little close ot the edge of the frame and I'm not sure it is a necessary element to the image. The main thing I would do differently is to try a shutter speed that would give a bit more definition in the water movement which I think is too amorphous. I would look at a speed of 1/3 second, maybe a litle faster. I also think the whites look too dull. I like your suggestion about trying a slightly faster shutter. I get caught up trying to get the super silky feel but forget that I lose some of the texture. This could help make the whites looks less dull perhaps. Originally posted by causey to answer your question: nothing. the image is great. Thanks for the comment Causey, Originally posted by RGlasel I know it's all the rage, but the long shutter speeds for blurred water isn't my cup of tea. My only criticism is that you could have done something more uncommon with the water. I really like the way using a wide focal length brings the wood and moss on the left side to prominence to give some depth or 3-D feel to the entire frame. I have to start trying that myself. If you are able to select what time you take the picture, you might be able to get sunlight on the rocks or some trees up front, or if you like the effect of bright regions of the background contrasting with shaded regions in the foreground, you might want to take this shot later or earlier in the day. Or not, taking this picture at high noon puts spots of bright light on the foliage in the middle, and produces some nice shadows in the foreground on the left side. When I took my shot, we were driving back to Terrace and I was already losing good light with the sun getting low in the west. Oh, I also like the proportioning of your picture with the falls moving from far left to the right side of the middle third of the frame. Using the widest focal length of your lens also allowed you to get most of the mini-falls on the right in the frame. I like the moss and roots on the left side as well. Seems to add perspective and depth to the image. The timing is very important here. The forest is pretty thick but the creek is widest right at the base of these falls (actually three sets but only two can be shown at once with 18mm) so the high sun can obliterate the scene at midday. This was closer to the evening which is why the trees in the background (looking east) were picking up some strong light from the sun as it moved to the west.

01-17-2014, 03:47 PM	#11
CreationBear Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 2,415	This might seem strange, but for me the focal point of the image is the downed tree limbs in the lower righthand corner. I might try cropping the top 1/4th or so of the image, so that you lose the horizon and the very top of the big falls--but keep the pretty light on the tree trunk and the secondary falls in its entirety. That would also let the sawn log on the lefthand margin of the picture contribute to a "story" --I understand the current need for something to anchor that expanse of swirling water, but for me it's a bit too busy and filigreed to perform that function. At any rate, it's a lovely landscape to explore--you could spend a lot of time mining all the facets...though hopefully with a WR lens.

01-20-2014, 02:10 PM	#12
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	the first thing I noticed was the considerable distortion of the tree along the left edge. it tends give pause to the scene as we naturally scan left to right, so I try to be very cognizant of any subject along left side of an image. I think the empty space just before the curved tree, gives the feeling of the right side being cut off, and from what I can tell, the secondary waterfall would be much more interesting than the tree anyway. you can get silky water with an ND filter so you don't have to stop down to f18. a 2 stop ND is a great companion for waterfall images I haven't been there so I can't say definitively, but if the water depth and flow was not too great, setting up your tripod about 6 inches into the creek (one leg) to the right, would have given you a more face on view of the main falls, allowed you to remove some of the bank in bottom left and possibly brought in the right falls a little more. as it stands, the left inch or so adds no value to the scene I've mentioned this on a couple other images from others, when you have the large amount of distortion that you get at 18mm with this lens, you are better off shooting at about 30mm and stitching together 4ish or so images to get a flatter field, or use the distortion to your creative advantage and try angles from another perspective, perhaps. the greens look great to me, but the exposure might be 1/3-1/2 under exposed because the peak values look a tad blue to me. that might give you a little extra pop to work with and allow some contrast into the scene

01-25-2014, 02:13 PM	#13
BossyJace New Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2	I love it, the blurred water adds so much interest to a landscape.

02-18-2014, 03:33 PM	#14
Scootatheschool1990 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Boise Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 466	Hey, I did a little editing. The image is awesome. You have an eye for a good photo. I simply edited with luminosity masks. (From Tony Kuyper webiste and Chip Phillips videos) I'll share the link to the PSD when it's finished uploading.

02-18-2014, 10:56 PM	#15
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,751	People have picked up on elements here and there, from the distortion to the greens and whether slow water works or not. All valid points but somehow they come together to make a very good image. I supposed it might have been interesting to take one at a much shorter shutter speed for comparison - you have an interesting scene there that doesn't necessarily need the blurred water effect. Originally posted by nomadkng I've mentioned this on a couple other images from others, when you have the large amount of distortion that you get at 18mm with this lens, you are better off shooting at about 30mm and stitching together 4ish or so images to get a flatter field, or use the distortion to your creative advantage and try angles from another perspective, perhaps. This sounds like a lot of work, especially as you need to get the 4 images to mesh properly. Is there no other way to minimize or at least reduce the distortion?