A novice try

[flyingcow]

Greetings all!

I've been following the forum for a while, and I decided it was time to see what you all though.  I'm very much so a novice, so any advice will be well appreciated.  Thanks much and enjoy!

-Pete

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I assume these are Niagara falls? Quite nice and moody.

[degrub]

i like the second for the sense of height.
i would re-frame the first, similar to the second to capture the intimacy of the water over the edge with depth provided by the out of focus creamy misty background.

[RSL]

Like 'em both, Cow, especially #2. I think I understand what Grub's saying, but I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you "re-frame" a picture to include what's beyond the frame.

[amolitor]

Nice stuff, I feel pretty much the same way as previous posters.

Quibbles: in the first one there is some oblong object visible in the mist, more or less a horizontal line in the middle of that soft cloud. I find it distracting, and wish it either were not there, or made itself more obvious (I don't know what it is). The light feels a little strange, the foreground is very dark and moody but the falls and mist seem to be more or less well lit. These feel a bit like looking out of a cave, but I don't think we are.

I propose no "solutions" to these remarks, I merely note them as features of the images that make me feel uncomfortable.

I am fascinated by photographs which rob me of a sense of scale. How close is the stuff in the foreground? It feels sort of like puddles at our feet, but for all I know they are vast pools 100 yards away. This inability to tell scale is a positive, for me.

[luxborealis]

I prefer #1 because it encourages me to look deeper/further into the image. #2 is just "there" and that's it.

With #1, I feel there should is something more above the image. There appears to be a falls line in the middle top that is incomplete and the beginnings of a treeline that also feels incomplete - both of which, if included, may give the scene the sense of completion I, for one, am looking for. Of course, perhaps you've done this on purpose, to leave us wanting more!

[popnfresh]

I also prefer #1. But this is another instance where I think the graphic impact of the image isn't well served by its soft color palette. So I've taken the liberty of doing a monochrome conversion.

[flyingcow]

Quibbles: in the first one there is some oblong object visible in the mist, more or less a horizontal line in the middle of that soft cloud. I find it distracting, and wish it either were not there, or made itself more obvious (I don't know what it is). The light feels a little strange, the foreground is very dark and moody but the falls and mist seem to be more or less well lit. These feel a bit like looking out of a cave, but I don't think we are.

I honestly have no idea what that oblong object is.  It is most likely part of the hydro plant building that is embedded into the gorge wall on the Canadian side of the falls.  I messed with the sliders in LR to see if I can blend it in, but that didn't result in anything I liked.

I am fascinated by photographs which rob me of a sense of scale. How close is the stuff in the foreground? It feels sort of like puddles at our feet, but for all I know they are vast pools 100 yards away. This inability to tell scale is a positive, for me.

This was kind of what I was aiming for in the first shot.  The foreground rocks are about three feet away, but that is just the top of a 170 foot drop with the pool in the mist below.

I prefer #1 because it encourages me to look deeper/further into the image. #2 is just "there" and that's it.

With #1, I feel there should is something more above the image. There appears to be a falls line in the middle top that is incomplete and the beginnings of a treeline that also feels incomplete - both of which, if included, may give the scene the sense of completion I, for one, am looking for. Of course, perhaps you've done this on purpose, to leave us wanting more!

I was trying to obscure the rest of the falls in hopes of really emphasizing the potential energy in the water (this is what happens when you give an engineer a camera)

That monochrome is great.  I might try to play with the shadows a bit and then convert it.  I'll post it after I play with it.

Thanks much for your input!

-pete

[Rob C]

I like your nice sense of shapes and weights, Flyingcow. (That demands explanation!)

I think that those factors alone can go a long way to making many a shot more interesting. In fact, it's what makes or breaks a lot of 'abstracts' because there usually isn't anything but weight and shape games going on in them. If it works with them, it must certainly have impact on everything else, too.

But hell, an engineer already has a sense of weights and checks and balances built in!

;-)

Rob C

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Hi FlyingCow (nice forum name BTW).

A very difficult subject for several reasons and for most photographers, novice or otherwise and I think you did quite well.

I am guessing it was an overcast day and you hand held the shot using one of your camera's auto or semi-auto settings, nothing wrong with that in a lot of circumstances, but in this difficult shot in what appear to be less than ideal lighting conditions, I think the camera has chosen wrongly for you, by going for a fairly wide open aperture combined with a fast shutter speed. The good part is it was fast enough to stop the weeds moving in the lower part of the shot, the bad part is you have lost some DoF in the waterfall from the mid-ground to back and the light is a bit flat.

Dave

[flyingcow]

Hi FlyingCow (nice forum name BTW).

A very difficult subject for several reasons and for most photographers, novice or otherwise and I think you did quite well.

I am guessing it was an overcast day and you hand held the shot using one of your camera's auto or semi-auto settings, nothing wrong with that in a lot of circumstances, but in this difficult shot in what appear to be less than ideal lighting conditions, I think the camera has chosen wrongly for you, by going for a fairly wide open aperture combined with a fast shutter speed. The good part is it was fast enough to stop the weeds moving in the lower part of the shot, the bad part is you have lost some DoF in the waterfall from the mid-ground to back and the light is a bit flat.

Dave

Thanks!

I was in full manual, and was at 1/125 s and f/13.  Actually, I would have liked a faster shutter speed to hold the falls in suspension even more, but I was wary of going much below f/13. The one thing I did have on was auto-focues, and I can't remember where it decided to focus.  I believe it was on the small grasses in the foreground, but I'm not so sure.  The sky was pretty clear, but the mist from the falls just took out any direct sunlight.

p.s. Flyingcow is my forum name on almost every forum I'm on.  Once you see a 6'3", 300lb. telemark skier, it kind of makes sense