Waterfall (Rework of an old image)

[ceeboy14]

 

[cbarnard7]

Really nice shot- especially with the beam of light coming from the top right corner! My only small concern is that it's maybe a tad underexposed? But, I know that there's a canopy of trees blocking some sun, so it's natural. Is this in Florida? I've lived in Florida my whole life and never saw a waterfall!

 

[ceeboy14]

Falling Waters State Park in NW Florida. Highest waterfall in the state but much of where it falls is into a very deep sinkhole so you only get to see about 80 feet of it before it disappears into a deep abyss.

 

[cbarnard7]

Very cool, I've seen a lot of white water throughout the state, but never a full-on waterfall! When I go back, I'll have to check it out! I used to live in Panama City for a little while, so I'm surprised I never went.

 

[amolitor]

It's pretty nice, as these things go. There's usually not a lot to be had from this sort of shot. Well done getting what was there to be got.

I like the relationship between the rounded spray/mist cloud just off the "shoulder" of the waterfall, and the similar round shape in the bush lower down the waterfall. I might crop slightly to place those two in more obvious symmetry across the frame, and might possibly use a little light burning and dodging to make that visual connection/relationship more prominent. Just a suggestion, though.

 

[FanBoy]

To be effective, I like to see waterfall shots either in freeze frame or ultra-smooth. Any exposure in between is viewed as amateurish.

 

[ceeboy14]

To be effective, I like to see waterfall shots either in freeze frame or ultra-smooth. Any exposure in between is viewed as amateurish.

And, who pray tell made up this silly rule? Geeze, Louise.

 

[amolitor]

I view smooth as an ugly cliche, and frozen water as a bit amateurish. Neither is naturalistic, both exhibit a failure to be sensitive to the scene. In terms of shutter speed, ceeboy is definitely in a good zone, to my eye.

 

[JG_Coleman]

To be effective, I like to see waterfall shots either in freeze frame or ultra-smooth. Any exposure in between is viewed as amateurish.

For better or worse, FanBoy is right. Just look at the bulk of prominent landscape photography these days. If the work of the most accomplished and celebrated landscape photographers right now generally shows water in either freeze-frame or long-shutter smooth, then it's safe to say that, indeed, anything else would oftentimes be seen as amateurish.

And, who pray tell made up this silly rule? Geeze, Louise.

Don't worry, ceeboy... if you re-read the post you'll find nobody said or even insinuated that it was "rule". A simple observation was stated.

I view smooth as an ugly cliche, and frozen water as a bit amateurish. Neither is naturalistic, both exhibit a failure to be sensitive to the scene.

Hmmm... well amolitor, you really need to start spreading the word to the world's top landscape photographers, since many of them tend to favor either freeze-frame or long-shutter-smooth water in their work. They are failing to be sensitive to the scene as you read this very post. Help them change their ways, amolitor! Help them see the light of the in-between-shutter-speed-for-water-that-looks-sort-of-furry-and-shaggy.

I jest, I jest. It's just funny that somebody "dared" to make a statement about what technique may be amaterish, and like clockwork, a couple folks inevitably crawl out of the woodwork anxious to squash what they perceive as a restrictive, stuffy, status-quo element of photography.

Smooth, freeze-frame, somewhere-in-between: it makes little difference really. That is, unless you start trying to make a conversation out of it.

 

[ceeboy14]

Let's just say it was spoken in a very matter-of-fact manner, thus the jest of it being a rule...I am with Amolitor in getting bored with milky water or everything frozen in some abstract moment no one could ever possibly see - though this also holds true of milky water. I appreciate the artistic merits of both but it doesn't make them right and everyone else wrong, it just makes them different. Personally, I like a blend of the two but there wasn't enough light to make a freeze frame capture...milky is too passé for me...perhaps it is old age.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Sure, it's an aesthetic preference to a certain extent. Though the long-shutter, smoothed-out water on rivers or waterfalls is not strictly a creative style... or perhaps I should say that there are others factors involved.

Bright, sunny days generally tend to be terrible for photographing waterfalls and rough, whitewater rivers. The glare of the sun off of the whitewater causes ugly blow-outs all over the exposure which, on top of burning out detail in those areas, lends a harsh and typically unappealing contrast to the photograph. So, many waterfall and whitewater river shots are taken either A) on overcast days, B) during early morning twilight or C) at dusk/sunset. In each of these cases, there simply isn't much light available (relatively speaking) for fast exposures. If you shoot with a polarizer, as is common with landscape photography involving water, then your exposures will be even slower. If your shot requires any substantial depth-of-field, then you can't exactly compensate for low-light and a light-reducing filter by using a large aperture.

Unless your willing to start really cranking up the ISO (and introducing color/luminance noise), then working with a long-shutter speed and producing smooth-water shots is really just as much a matter of technique as it is creativity. So, while I really do respect that you aren't aesthetically moved by smoothed-out water, consider at least that in many cases it's sort of a technical consideration relating to low-light scenes; that alone explains much of the ubiquity of smooth-water shots. It's not so much that photographers hit the river desperate to "force" a smooth-water look upon a waterfall... it's simply that it works out that way much of the time due to available light, light-reducing filters, the need for an aperture that provides a reasonable depth of field and the desire to avoid introducing considerable noise by boosting ISO.

 

[amolitor]

You're an obnoxious jerk.

I jest! I jest!

Top landscape photographers follow fads, because they have to, and these days in particular are producing ugly cliches to sell to rubes who will buy them because they match the couch. Milky white creaminess has not always been the fashion, and in due time it will no longer be the fashion.

 

[JG_Coleman]

You're an obnoxious jerk.

An "obnoxious jerk"... resorting to name-calling so quickly? Wow, you are reallllllllly passionate about the smooth water thing, huh? Had I known you were so sensitive, I would've candy-coated the truth for you, amolitor.

Top landscape photographers follow fads, because they have to, and these days in particular are producing ugly cliches to sell to rubes who will buy them because they match the couch. Milky white creaminess has not always been the fashion, and in due time it will no longer be the fashion.

You're wrong.

And I don't jest at all when I say that you're much, much more sensitive to nature than all those stupid, fad-following, cliche-making, match-the-couch-with-their-work top landscape photographers. Also, you don't seem embittered at all by their success. No worries, I bet you're better than all of them!

 

[amolitor]

My point was not specificlly to namecall, but to point out that saying something offensive, and then jamming a smily, or "lol!" or "I jest! I jest!" after it doesn't make it ok. A point which I suspect you understood, but are electing to feign ignorance of, since you lovingly edited my "I jest! I jest!" out.

Ansel Adams was a pretty well known landscape photographer once upon a time. You might want to check out his waterfalls. Just sayin'

While your support is certainly appreciated, I'm not a better landscape photographer than really anyone. It's not my thing, for starters, and I'm a better critic than a photographer anyways. That said, I'm quite a good critic. I pay attention, I am moderately aware of historical precedents and trends. ceeboy's picture falls doesn't comply with contemporary fads among the high volume cliche-meisters of today, but it's well within historical norms. To claim that I am jealous of their success is simply absurd. It's a cheap shot based on nothing whatsoever, and it's also wrong.

And that's enough pissing match from me, I think. You may have the last word.

 

[JG_Coleman]

My point was not specificlly to namecall, but to point out that saying something offensive, and then jamming a smily, or "lol!" or "I jest! I jest!" after it doesn't make it ok. A point which I suspect you understood, but are electing to feign ignorance of, since you lovingly edited my "I jest! I jest!" out.

Ansel Adams was a pretty well known landscape photographer once upon a time. You might want to check out his waterfalls. Just sayin'

While your support is certainly appreciated, I'm not a better landscape photographer than really anyone. It's not my thing, for starters, and I'm a better critic than a photographer anyways. That said, I'm quite a good critic. I pay attention, I am moderately aware of historical precedents and trends. ceeboy's picture falls doesn't comply with contemporary fads among the high volume cliche-meisters of today, but it's well within historical norms. To claim that I am jealous of their success is simply absurd. It's a cheap shot based on nothing whatsoever, and it's also wrong.

And that's enough pissing match from me, I think. You may have the last word.

I do thank you for allowing me the last word, amolitor. How kind of you! So here's the last words...

Maybe you are a good critic... but this thread certainly doesn't demonstrate that. All you've shown here is a rather childish, virtriolic hatred towards mainstream landscape photography. That's not insightful, amolitor... it's really just silly and rather trivial.

You essentially have gone on and on about how smooth water shots are somehow an example of everything that is wrong with landscape photography. You've basically dismissed all well-known landscape photographers as a bunch of clowns that are just selling junk... you've also dismissed all buyers of landscape photography as tasteless idiots that buy junk. A laughable, immature and patently unsophisticated viewpoint, really... it's funny that you would package yourself as "quite a good critic" when your insight boils down to "pros are stupid and they suck".

And back to the matter at hand: you haven't really expressed a good reason smooth water is so bad. I mean, sure, you've claimed that it represents an insensitivity to nature, but we both know your just blowing hot air with that sort of meaningless statement. Do you expect anyone to believe that a photographer who uses long shutter speeds while photographing a waterfall or river is somehow less sensitive to nature than someone that uses a faster shutter speed? Please...

The only real problem you have with it is that it's a technique that's prominently seen in landscape photography.

At the end of the day, you have just babbled on and on how modern, professional landscape photography is apparently an abomination of all things artistic and soulful. You have nothing of real consequence to say, so put on your tinfoil hat and keep telling everyone about the conspiracy that is modern landscape photography.

It's a good thing that you're giving me the last word, because I'm finished paying attention to your nonsense. Though in truth, I wouldn't put it passed you to respond. You haven't even been on this forum for two years yet and you've already made 4600+ posts. You speak loudly (and constantly), but say nothing. It's a shame really...