Challenge: waterfalls, modest to grand, modest to overpowering!

[Louis Doench]

First Post in awhile, a waterfall!

With my domestic life a bit busy (2 year old w/ another coming any day now) I don't get to do a lot of shooting outdoors.

Luckily this waterfall is indoors at the Krohn Conservatory in Eden Park, Cincinnati.

No tripod! crouched down against the railing and used a slow flash fill in. Not an effect I get that often. Converted to B/W thru the channel mixer, about 45% Red/55% green.

Feel free to tell me what you all think.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Congratulations on surviving the 2 year old! Its nature's training for managing teenagers. More so a safe delvery and great joy with the next one! Looking forward to new images. I hope the baby drops out as easily as water coming down a tiny waterfall!

Good to see you here and your post is great. I always like waterfalls large and small. They have beyond the impressive scene, as you have shown well, a special presence in multidimensions.

Spray sometimes on your face, cooler air coming from the evaporated air sucking up heat (that's chemistry, the latent heat of vaporization is a must to energize the transition from liquid to fast vapor molecules, LOL), gentle bubbling and rush from the elves to thunderous roar from the gods. There's a sense of beauty and power of nature.

Now with all this to appreciate it is hard to get all this crammed in to a 2 dimensional image!

Some people go for creamy water with a slow shutter. Some stop the water so droplets can be seen.

Using the fill light helps to give dimension to the water.

Thanks for starting this off!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

The 16-35mm 2.8L II work of Peter Mendelson

Following my lengthy deliberations (which are the subject of a different thread), I finally decided on getting the 16-35L mkII as my super wide angle choice for my 5D. I received it yesterday and immediately went out in the evening to shoot some local waterfalls. I was very happy with the edge-to-edge sharpness of this lens, and am posting the following examples in case anyone is interested or has questions. I was concerned after reading some posts by people who were not that happy with the performance of their copies of this lens at the long end, but I found the performance to be very satisfactory at the long and the short end. I will probably use this lens more often stopped down, but it was quite good even at f/2.8. I got some shots with it wide open indoors that I just would not have been able to with the 17-40L.

Thanks,

Peter

I find your pictures so beautiful that the belong here too!

The B&W effect is exemplary and the texture of the water the best I've seen for slow shutter giving a fine but sharp fast water effect. The drawing if the water is to me exceptional.

Asher

 

[Tom Robbins]

Louis, I envy your indoor waterfalls! Hope all goes well with the family.

Asher, had to resist the temptation to go out and buy a copy of the new 16-35 after seeing Peter's images. I like the b&w treatment very much.

The above shot of falls at Starved Rock State Park in Illinois was taken last December on a foggy morning using the old Canon 28-70mm f2.8 zoom. After years of trying, I have to admit that I've never really been pleased with any of the resulting photos. Hmmm, maybe I really do need that new 16-35mm!

 

[Louis Doench]

Tom, I envy your access to beautiful scenes like that!

 

[Tim Gray]

Here's one from Sunday, Balls Falls, Ontario - Niagara Escarpment

 

[Len Mitchell]

My Contribution

Hi All,

I'm new here, but here's my contribution to the excellent work already posted:

 

[Asher Kelman]

Len,

I'm so impressed! Any chance of seing them larger? The second one I like particularly in its range of dark and mid grey tones.

Asher

 

[Len Mitchell]

Len,

I'm so impressed! Any chance of seing them larger? The second one I like particularly in its range of dark and mid grey tones.

Asher

Asher, I'll look into it for you. I may have to go back to the originals and do a resize/sharpen. Glad you like them! Thanks!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

OK, waterfalls:

Ardenaig (Highlands of Scotland)

Seljalandsfoss (Iceland)

Dettifoss (Iceland)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ben,

Short reply; fine work!

Asher

 

[Len Mitchell]

Ben, very nice work. Glad to see this thread moving!

 

[ron_hiner]

These are all stunning shots...

I wish you would all post your shutter speed used.... that seems like a crucial element to getting the water to look smooth and silky -- but retaining the texture.

I'm guessing the time is somewhere between 2 seconds and 1/3 of second -- but thats a big range.

Ron

 

[Jack_Flesher]

Here's an embarrassingly modest one

 

[ron_hiner]

Your modest one blows mine away!

I'm experimenting with tecnique here... Please comment.

I shot 5 shots all at 1/3 second, but with varying aperatures, on a tripod of course, with an ND filter.

I took my two favorite (defined and the one with the best water, and the one with best rocks and foliage) and tried CS3 HDR. The results were terrible.

So took the two shots and put them into one image in photshop and using a mask, picked and chose the best parts of each image.

So there's my result.

I'm new at this waterfall stuff. C&C is appreciated.

Ron

P.S. very interesting... viewing it my web browser makes it look more overexposed/washed out than does viewing it in photoshop.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ron,

I like the picture a lot. I'd love to have more of the tree on the right if you have it and some spray in the air.

Your appproach is entrirely logical since that's how the eye and human brain works, processing the different zones to the best advantage. You are capturing the data that way. Post processing is fine too.

I'm not always a fan of the creamy look and think experimentation with faster shutter's is worth looking at from time to time or even combining the effects.

Asher

 

[Josh Liechty]

Bridal Veil falls (detail), Black Hills National Forest

Small waterfall upstream from Tower Falls, Yellowstone National Park

Upper Falls in Yellowstone National Park

Sorry about the lack of EXIF; I'll excuse myself because I was unfamiliar with Lightroom at the time, and didn't see this mistake until after the photos were posted online and had been commented upon. The first and third were taken with a Nikon 70-200mm, while the middle one was shot using a 17-35mm lens. All were long exposures from a tripod; no HDR or stitching was done for any of these - I'm not good enough to do that sort of thing with still subjects, let alone moving water.

After revisiting all of the photos in this thread, I can't help but comment on Ben's third photo. Everyone's waterfalls have been good IMHO, but this particular one is so spectacular - an excellent waterfall in a fantastic landscape!

 

[Ray West]

Hi Ron,

I like the composition , the curvature, the framing, apart from a little irritation with the black wedge in the log running down the rhs. The sharp image of the rocks and banks and trees look as if its been pasted on top of a blurred waterfall. I think it needs some splashes/drops of water to break up the sharp outlines of the rocks, or maybe selectively blur the sharp area to direct your eye to a point of interest, to enhance the depth of perspective. I prefer sharp water, it splashes, not oozes like cream. As you mention, the web image may exaggerate the effect. If you can return, take the shots with a range of speeds. Close up waterfall needs a different speed than far off, to capture the movement.

Best wishes,

Ray