OK, this is the same fall as my swirling leaf shot but from a lower level. I generally don't like waterfall images where the base is cut but I find myself liking this one....so I ask myself why?.....I was standing on a ledge already.....couldn't go further out.....lower I would start to cut the upper falls and the rock in the pool would start to merge with the upper cascade.....is that influencing my decision here?
I will confess that over the years I have this falls about every way imagineable......except this one!....so is that skewing my view?
As Dave can tel you.....Once I find a scene I am happy with.....I will work it till I've covered every 1/2 inch of it!....but should that play a role in why I like the image considering how I feel about cutting water flow in general?
Canon 1D Mark lll with the 17-40 at 25mm ISO 100 at f22 for 30 seconds with the Singh Ray Vari ND filter. Hand used to block part of the lower cascade during the exposure. I will be doing a 1 day workshop in the fall to this area so I will keep you all posted.
Ok, here's my take, Roman. If the upper falls was not in the image, I would find the water to nowhere in the bottom to take me utterly out of the scene. Here, it seeems you have made the unlikely lower falls an integral part of a lovely landscape. My eye keeps going to the upper falls and pool.
I love the lone rock in the pool. It's a winner in my book!
I have locations that I have revisited many times-locations that I am in love with-trying to find the right angle to make it "work". Sometimes I am blinded by my attachment to the place. I am too involved to make my own judgement. This forum has me thinking landscapes again. Almost all of my previous work is on slides that I never even look at anymore. Thanks to you and the other moderators and contributors.
Hi Roman, I can attest to you working this for along time and I was wondering what you were shooting from that angle. Now I know! The technicals are spot on with beautiful color and a silky flow with detail in the water.
The placement of the rock and the 2 falls are also handled very well. The falls in the foreground has become a key element and plays back and forth with the backround falls. The juxtaposition works but I still long for more on the bottom of the front falls taking me out...
What a breathtaking spot, and you've photographed it beautifully. I, too, love that rock! The loss of the lower falls is significant. My eye keeps going down there searching for it. Have you tried a vertical pano? It might be impossible to get a good blend being this close.
What a stunning location.
I must admit I don't find the loss of the base of the falls significant. The flow naturally leads my eye to the rock and the rear falls.
You have done an excellent job of PP and I love it!
Hood location for a vertical pano ;) or at least two rows, up and bottom, to include the water reaching the bottom in the lower falls.
Colors and mood are excellent.
Thanks all!
Mixed reaction in me too....even at 17mm and vert.....not sure I could get the whole thing as it breaks off to the left.......but will explore a pano stitch next time!.......gets pretty uninteresting near the lower cascade so will have to see if it is worth it!
Can't wait to see a Roman Pano?? I think most would agree that more of the lower falls would improve things a bit. Time to invest in some waders dude...I tried to play with it and cut off some of the lower falls with the idea that the eye could travel from upper to lower falls with just enough to maintain interest...not sure if I like it...Original post still works in my opinion.
I say, grow some wings! Seriously all of the points have been covered and your self assessment is on target. I like the scene as a whole, but the lower falls is missing the mark with nowhere to land. Waders...theres an idea.
Roman, I really like this image. I'd like to know did you shoot any a little wider to incorporate some more of the foreground? I am really wanting to see where that lower section of falling water is going, if even a little bit.
Compositionally, I like what you've got here. Perhaps if you stepped back a few feet and shot at the same focal length and height off the ground it would accomplish that little bit more at the foreground without sacrificng placement or aspect ratio of the other elements.
excellent stuff. Where is this, if you don't mind sharing?
Hi Ed,
I am standing on a small ledge/drop-oof....nowhere to go and I was leaning as far over as I could. My tripod leg is just out of view in the FG and the fall bottom drops off to the left about 15 feet. Going wider brought in an ugly part of the far shore and my tripod....so that's why I didn't go to 17mm.
If you google Child's Falls State Park you will get specific directions but it is just over the border of NJ and Pensy in Dingmans Ferry.
Thoughts apprciated!
Reply With Quote
