Clear Creek Falls

[RxForB3]

Which do you prefer? I kind of like the second one better because it puts the tree as a point of focus. But then that may just be me.

1.


IMG_8061 by RxForB3, on Flickr

2.


IMG_8070 by RxForB3, on Flickr

 

[JasonB]

Can you share your f-stop, shutter speed, etc .......... Thanks

 

[RxForB3]

Sure

Image 1:

ISO: 100
Aperture: f/8
Shutter: 1/60 second
Focal Length: 100mm
Lens: Canon EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Image 2:

ISO: 100
Aperture: f/8
Shutter: 1/100 second
Focal Length: 226mm
Lens: Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

Anything else you'd like to know, just ask!

 

[spacefuzz]

2nd one definitely, the tree provides a nice sense of scale. I would love to see it with 1 second shutter speed and the same focal length if its easy to get back to.

 

[RxForB3]

It's easy enough to get back to, but unfortunately I need a better tripod. The Sigma Bigma is one heavy sucker and my poor little tripod doesn't stand a chance with it. Plus, I don't have the bracket or whatever is necessary for a portrait orientation. However, the waterfall isn't going anywhere and I doubt the tree is either! Once I recover from my initial camera/lens/accessory purchases, a new tripod is first on the list!

 

[WesternGuy]

Both nice shots, but I would vote for number 2 as well. As spacefuzz says, a longer shutter speed to get more "flow" in the water would be interesting.
_______________
WesternGuy

 

[bs0604]

I like the first one better. Gives more of a sense of scale. Perhaps a zoom in between #1 and #2 would be perfect.

 

[JasonB]

Sure

Image 1:

ISO: 100
Aperture: f/8
Shutter: 1/60 second
Focal Length: 100mm
Lens: Canon EF100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Image 2:

ISO: 100
Aperture: f/8
Shutter: 1/100 second
Focal Length: 226mm
Lens: Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

Anything else you'd like to know, just ask!

Thanks for the settings ....... Have a great day!!
Jason

 

[ChristianGrattan]

My initial leaning was toward #1. For some reason it has more emotional impact for me, maybe because I live in a city and never see waterfalls and all that space.

#1 gives me more of a sense of isolation. I would like to see that same focal length, but with the waterfall lower and more of what is behind it in the frame. Maybe even a touch of the horizon.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

#1 far exceeds #2 in terms of composition and relative space IMO, making #1 the far superior image. It would make an excellent large print.

The tiny bit of sky in #1 at the top of the frame along with the rolling hillsides gives depth, perspective, and relativity making the composition strong.

It doesn't hurt that everything is sharper in #1 too. Trees are slightly OOF in #2.

 

[yerlem]

#1 for me

 

[Compaq]

#2 for me :thumbsup: Great stuff, imo! I find #1 too busy, and the water is behind one of the trees. #2 is stronger, compositionally, IMO, and I find the DOF quite pleasing. Like looking at the scene, myself.

 

[RxForB3]

Yes, that tree in front of the waterfall in the first picture is really frustrating. Unfortunately there's not really much room to move for a different perspective. It's right at a very sharp curve in the road. I've actually lived here two years and driven that road many time and never knew you could see the waterfall from there. There's a scenic viewpoint up closer, but really doesn't do the waterfall justice from a photography standpoint. The first picture was using my 100mm, so maybe soon I'll head back, try moving around, and use a tripod to allow a longer exposure.

It's always fun to get different opinions. It seems almost a 50/50 split on the photos.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Yes, that tree in front of the waterfall in the first picture is really frustrating. Unfortunately there's not really much room to move for a different perspective. It's right at a very sharp curve in the road. I've actually lived here two years and driven that road many time and never knew you could see the waterfall from there. There's a scenic viewpoint up closer, but really doesn't do the waterfall justice from a photography standpoint. The first picture was using my 100mm, so maybe soon I'll head back, try moving around, and use a tripod to allow a longer exposure.

It's always fun to get different opinions. It seems almost a 50/50 split on the photos.

I don't think you can really appreciate either image until comparing both at full size (large print size). I looked at the level of detail in both shots by viewing flickr @ full resolution. #1 is far and away sharper. #2 has soft elements and the composition is weaker. And again, just my opinion, in #1 you have working elements of the sky (which is important for depth and relationships of objects in the image), rolling hills fading in the background, curvature of the foreground slope and a nice cliff face along with the waterfall tying it all together. I think #1 is the runaway better shot.

It comes down to this for me: #1 makes me want to go see this spot, and if it were my photograph I would want to make an extra large print of it because at larger size you can truly appreciate the level of detail and the goodies in the image. #2 is fine. I like how the trees frame the fall, but you've compromised perspective and other subjects of the landscape, and I think it's a detriment.

 

[RxForB3]

Very good points, Rotanimod. I think you swayed me to #1.