Waterfall pond - trash or keep?

[Bruce A]

I shot this today up in the rainforests of Springbrook National Park. I know the shutter speed was slower than what should have been used but I was looking for something a little different. I did a little tweaking with the exposure layer in CS5. Does it work for you or should I trash it?

Any other critique on composition, exposure etc is also welcome.



spbk_waterfall2sml by banphotography, on Flickr


Camera Nikon D90
Exposure 4
Aperture f/13.0
Focal Length 28 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

[RichardTaylor]

The composition looks ok,

Parts of it appear (and on the histogram) to be a bit overexposed, especially the water near the cliff.

With a bit more tweaking to bring back the exposure, it would be a keeper for me.

[SwissJon]

Not sure.. The composition is busy..

The falls are pretty, and I like the effect you got with long the exposure, very nice. I like the colours too.. I'm just not so sure about the composition.. The falls are falling away from me, and that bugs me a little, you kinda lose the levels, and the grass in the foreground and trees in the near background all make a tranquil scen rather busy..

I think I'd probably keep this because it's clear and sharp, but perhaps go back and see if there is a better shot to be had.

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

The composition looks ok,

Parts of it appear (and on the histogram) to be a bit overexposed, especially the water near the cliff.

With a bit more tweaking to bring back the exposure, it would be a keeper for me.

Thanks for your comments Richard. I tried to bring back the exposure near the edge of the falls, but to no avail. There was a lot of reflection at that spot. But I'll see if there's something more I can do.

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Not sure.. The composition is busy..

The falls are pretty, and I like the effect you got with long the exposure, very nice. I like the colours too.. I'm just not so sure about the composition.. The falls are falling away from me, and that bugs me a little, you kinda lose the levels, and the grass in the foreground and trees in the near background all make a tranquil scen rather busy..

I think I'd probably keep this because it's clear and sharp, but perhaps go back and see if there is a better shot to be had.

Thanks SwissJon, the only other aspect I could take was from a viewpoint away from the falls (which I did) and shooting back at that spot meant standing near edge on slippery rock looking down about a thousand feet - I'm not that brave However I do know what you mean. Not so sure about the trees and grass detracting from the tranquility though.

[MilesToGo]

I have an opposite opinion.....I like the "inifinity" falls and that I can't see what is over the edge...it might be a foot down or 2,000 feet down. I think it has a sense of mystique which I like.

Cheers!
Kathy

[Bruce A]

Thanks Kathy, that's what I liked about the scene too.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Bruce A

Thanks SwissJon, the only other aspect I could take was from a viewpoint away from the falls (which I did) and shooting back at that spot meant standing near edge on slippery rock looking down about a thousand feet - I'm not that brave However I do know what you mean. Not so sure about the trees and grass detracting from the tranquility though.

LoL.. I've heard shots being described as "to die for", but I think that's a bit extreme.. Not unless you're a base jumper!!

What I meant about the trees and grass is that in the general composition, it's busy.. You've got some stunning water there, smooth and glassy, and then in the foreground the grass and the branch of tree over the gap have the opposite effect, they're spikey and have no real flow.. I know there's not a lot you could do about that in this situation, it's just an observation.

Something I read recently suggests that when you photograph forest scenes, you should try to avoid patches of bright sky in your composition, unless they're there for a purpose, such as to cast shadows, as they have the effect of drawing the eye from the subject. Perhaps that's why I find the tree branch disturbing, because it's silhouetted against an over exposed area.. I wonder if burning that area to make it darker and closer to the overall light level in the photo might help here.

[Bruce A]

Hmm - I see what you are getting at. When I get back on my other PC (with CS5) I'll have another go. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[Preeb]

I like it a lot. I don't see the "busy" aspect that Jon sees. My eye is drawn directly to the stream, and my thoughts to the mystery of "How high up are we?". After that I scan the framing around the water, but the entire composition works for me. I like the tuft of grass which breaks up the gray monotone of the rocks.

If there is a problem it's the blown out bit of sky and the refection of that.

[Bruce A]

Thanks Rick. The problem is that the sky appears blown out. The mountain was encased in white cloud made brighter with the sun behind it. With the dark canopy of trees over the stream, the brightness of the opening where the falls begin was almost overwhelming. Still, I intend to take it back to PS to see if there's a bit more I can do.

I also forgot to mention I used a rotating ND filter which was set at about 4 or 5 stops.