TECH SPECS: Canon Rebel XS, Kodak Royal Gold 100, Canon 35-80mm zoom lens, Hoya circular polarizer.

-- Justin W. Moore (justin@outdoorphoto.com), July 05, 1998

Answers

technically very good. seems to argue against the claimed inadequacy of "consumer zooms". however, i feel the impact would be higher if done in b&w and printed on high contrast paper.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), July 05, 1998.

This is quite a nice shot. I wonder whether it could have been shot a bit to the left of the current position. As the way it is, a rock obstructs part of the bottom of the falls and seems to "stop the flow." I would position the rock further to the right so that the entire bottom of the falls can be viewed.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worlnet.att.net), July 05, 1998.

Shun,

Good observation. I have several variants of this shot taken from different perspectives. In this case I was concentrating on including the small rocks in the foreground to give the shot some depth (I was at about 75mm on the zoom lens). The other variant on this shot shows the entire falls bottom (by shifting to the left) but looses a lot of the foreground making the image "flat".

Thanks, as always, for your input...

-- Justin W. Moore (justin@outdoorphoto.com), July 06, 1998.

Justin,

Very nice little image. I might have cropped a little tighter to simplifiy it. You said you had several variations so maybe you did. Maybe rack out to 100mm instead of 70mm to concentrate on the clump of grass and the waterfall. BTW I4ve been to your site and I must say that you have excellent scans. What do you do to make them so good?

-- Daryl Larkin (tuuk@supernews.com), July 06, 1998.

I think you could've reduced the exposure time a bit. I feel the long exposure has been overdone and makes the waterfall look unnatural - it has a 'glow' to it. I'm sure you could've achieved the silky effect of flowing water with a shorter exposure - did you take shots with other settings?

-- Bhaskar Thiagarajan (bhaskart@hotmail.com), July 06, 1998.

Justin,

I specialize in shooting waterfalls and frequently set my tripod in up to 4 feet of water and wade through rapids for just the right angles...but I'm crazy.

If you don't mind my asking, what state was this one in? Don't get too specific. ;>

That's a wonderful shot. There are a number of interesting compositions there. I like the way you included the reflection and the foreground rocks to create a sense of place and scale. I think that was an important choice. They lead the eye into the photo, the angle of them complements the angle of the water, and they provide interesting contrast between the large rocks in the top 2/3 of the frame. The place deserves at least one shot with those wonderful features.

The glow from the mist is nice too. Anyone who shoots waterfalls will tell you there's no avoiding it, it's simply the mist, and the whole idea is to create a surreal look. In fact some of us prefer certain times of light for even more surreal effects. Many people tell me that my own work looks more like paintings than photos...

Speaking of mist, I go to places where you can stand a hundred yards away and still get wet...some waterfalls create their own wind on warm days.

I do agree with the prevoios poster about printing it as a B&W. If you have Photoshop you might want to play around with a duotone or quadtone effect...

Also, you would do well to experiment with more advanced films than Kodak consumer film. The trouble you obviously go to in making images deserves better than "royal gold". :>

Nice work. :>

Keith http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 06, 1998.

All of my slides and negatives are scanned with a HP PhotoSmart scanner, usually at 1200 or 2400dpi. I then pull the image into Ulead's PhotoImpact software in order to crop, color correct, etc.

The waterfall in this photograph is in the Ouachita National Forest in western Arkansas. It is one of many that make Little Missouri Falls.

Thanks again for all of your comments and observations.

- Justin

-- Justin W. Moore (justin@outdoorphoto.com), July 06, 1998.

I like this picture very much; I certainly wouldn't mind if it were one of my own pics :-) The only thing that disturbs me is the almost-but-not-quite included left tip of the big rock. I'd either include it fully or crop half a centimeter or so off the left side of the picture. You might consider this nitpicking, but that's only because it is :-) Great photo!

-- Philipp Leibfried (phil@provi.de), July 09, 1998.

>The trouble you obviously go to in making images deserves better than "royal gold".<

Whats wrong with Royal Gold?

-- Tom Applegate (tapple@surfnetusa.com), July 09, 1998.

I like this kind of images. My only problem with this images is that the green plant close to the center. I cannot help my eyes going to that plant. I think it distords the balance a little bit. Was it not possible to go a little bit to left side and shoot? Or trying to place it against a dark background, decreasing contrast.

-- Hamdi Ogut (oguth@ucs.orst.edu), July 15, 1998.

Nice picture. Just a general observation. There are many comments like "could you have take it a bit from the left", "could you have removed that rock near the bottom of the Fall" or "the green plant is distracting". In my opinion, it's these little "imperfections" that make a photo interesting. It creates a tension that allows your eyes to wander around... So called "perfect" shots are often sterile and uninteresting, I think.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), July 20, 1998.

Very nice. But I would suggest a) to take it two or three steps closer b) with 4x5 (better resolution, better tonal gradation) c) shifted to the right side

-- Dr. Christian Becker (chribeck@orion.rz.mdc-berlin.de), July 25, 1998.