Starvation Creek

[EOBeav]

I'm not crazy about the comp here, now that I've taken it and brought it home. However, I would like your general thoughts on the editing that went into this. Also, how's the water movement? Unfortunately, the water was running fast, such that any exposure time longer than 1/10 was giving me some blown spots (I'm pushing it as it is). Is there enough motion here? I'll post another edit (same comp) this time tomorrow just for comparison.



EXIF:
Camera: Canon Rebel XSi (450D)
Lens: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L
Shutter speed: 1/10
Aperture: f/11
ISO: 200
Focal length: 200mm

[Sterling]

I think the water looks fine. Seems to be nice clarity in the moss and leaves. You're right about the comp. That log across the frame acts like a barrier.

[milosh]

I think the water movement is just fine, it's not "frozen" and it's not too silky/smooth either.
As Sterling said, the comp. is not perfect, the log acts like a barrier. Furthermore, the green colour of the background steals away my attention from the foreground rock (which is a main focal point in my view).
Since you ask about the processing, I find the colour of the moss on the foreground rock to be a bit unrealistic, too garish for my taste. Since there is a colour clash between those two, maybe saturation of background leaves could be lowered a little. This would be a great scene if there was no log, and if background leaves had some autumn colours.

[SwissJon]

I think you could probably have got away with a slightly faster photograph. What happened to the ND filter I've seen you use successfully elsewhere? Shame you didn't have it with you, I'd really like to have seen a tighter shot on the falls, physically moving lower so the green rock in the foreground takes a larger role in the photo, and the fallen tree is omitted entirely, I think it would have also allowed you to use a mugh larger aperture, F4 is the largest your lens can go to, so that seems appropriate, to push the green leaves into obscurity in the background, I find their detail somewhat distracting, your subject is devoid of detail due to motion blur, but the things that aren't subject, and are just incidental to the photo have high detail.. The leaves, the trunk etc.

I think Milosh is right, the green is a little over saturated in this photo, might be worth selectively desaturating the green and yellows so you can push the subject of the photo back to the water. I wonder what this photo would look like as a B&W conversion?

[EOBeav]

Thanks for the helpful feedback. In this instance, an ND filter wouldn't have helped me any. Any of the shots with shutter times slower than 1/10 was giving me some blown highlights. That's regardless of other settings of aperture, ISO, etc... This time of the year, these streams are running a lot heavier than normal. I was using a polarizer, which might account for the over saturation you're seeing here. It might also account for the difficulties with the highlights.

One other thing that's bugging me is the pile of debris right in the middle of the shot. I see that as much more distracting than the log. In fact, the log could be used effectively as a frame.

If anybody is visiting Oregon and want to shoot some mossy waterfall scenes, Starvation Creek is the place to go. It's only about 45 minutes west of Portland, right off the freeway, so it's easily accessible. This scene only represents a small fraction of the area that's available for shooting. In fact, one could pick out a dozen or so better comps in this scene alone. I plan on going back here later on this spring to spend a day or so when I get get those smaller, more intimate comps.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by EOBeav

Thanks for the helpful feedback. In this instance, an ND filter wouldn't have helped me any. Any of the shots with shutter times slower than 1/10 was giving me some blown highlights. That's regardless of other settings of aperture, ISO, etc... This time of the year, these streams are running a lot heavier than normal. I was using a polarizer, which might account for the over saturation you're seeing here. It might also account for the difficulties with the highlights.

Oh well. Damn.

One other thing that's bugging me is the pile of debris right in the middle of the shot. I see that as much more distracting than the log. In fact, the log could be used effectively as a frame.

It's a big straight line in a picture of curves, I'd like to see that, though I'm not sure it would ever fit in, even as a framing tool.. The flotsom in centre frame isn't really a distraction for me, it's the same colouration as the rest of the picture and there's nothing striking about it, so really it adds interest in the same way as a rock would. In fact, I quite like it, it's somewhere for the eye to pause.

[EOBeav]

I know this isn't a comparison forum, but hopefully the mods won't mind if I upload another edit of this shot. I like the detail in the water quite a bit better than in the first one.

[SwissJon]

I'll be honest Rick, I really can't see a difference between the two in the water, but you've managed to blow out the green in the moss on therock in the centre.

If you want to edit, why don't you create a layer and create a gausian blur over the leaves in the background.

The mods don't seem to mind people reposting edits of the same image based on suggestions made within the thread.

[EOBeav]

Guess I should give up already on this image, eh? Unfortunately, I didn't come back with much more from that trip.

[milosh]

The only difference in water that I can see looks like a slight levels adjustment was done (maybe setting black point?). It's a bit better but it was already good. If I were you, I would try to duplicate the layer, apply gaussian blur to it, and then hide the foreground rocks and the stream of that blurred layer with a mask. You can adjust the opacity of the blurred layer to your liking, and then make the mask semi transparent (gray) on the log, that way you could fake dof. Also try to desaturate the background a bit, you can use the same mask for that.

But, there's something about the settings you used that I want to ask you about: you said you wanted a slower shutter speed but it was blowing out the water.. Why did you use ISO200? Did you forget about it? You could have used ISO100 and a shutter speed of 1/5.

And how an ND filter wouldn't help you? It would lower the amount of light entering the lens, allowing you a longer shutter speed, right?