How could I have made these pictures better?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
They have not been edited in any way except scaling.

These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.

What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
just a bad subject?

This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
took it as an example.
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg

I took about 4 versions of this one at different shutter speeds.
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla04.jpg

Here are some others. There is a steady stream of people
through this area. Probably could have got it empty if I had
stayed there several hours.
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla02.jpg
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla03.jpg
http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla05.jpg

-Mike
37 answers Last reply
More about made pictures better
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
    message news:4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    > They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    >
    > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
    >
    > What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    > just a bad subject?

    It's a nice subject, but I prefer the pix with people in them, since it
    provides a sense of scale to the falls. In the first shot, I have no idea
    how big the falls really are. Adding a few well-placed people helps the
    shot, in my ever-so-humble-opinion.

    >
    > This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    > took it as an example.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg
    >
    > I took about 4 versions of this one at different shutter speeds.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla04.jpg
    >
    > Here are some others. There is a steady stream of people
    > through this area. Probably could have got it empty if I had
    > stayed there several hours.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla02.jpg
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla03.jpg
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla05.jpg
    >
    > -Mike
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Kinon O'cann <Yes.it's.me.Bowser@?.?> wrote:

    >> What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    >> just a bad subject?
    >
    >It's a nice subject, but I prefer the pix with people in them, since it
    >provides a sense of scale to the falls. In the first shot, I have no idea
    >how big the falls really are. Adding a few well-placed people helps the
    >shot, in my ever-so-humble-opinion.

    I'd say the same. A person actually -in- the falls might really
    do the trick.
    --
    Ken Tough
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
    >
    > What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    > just a bad subject?

    I shot this waterfall myself a few months ago. I don't claim my photos
    are good, or better than yours, or anything, but they are a little
    different:

    http://www.derekfountain.org/photos/holidays/usa_2005/cairns/_cairns.html/images/img_1283.jpg.html
    http://www.derekfountain.org/photos/holidays/usa_2005/cairns/_cairns.html/images/img_1287.jpg.html

    I went for the longer exposure to give the cotton wool effect.

    Getting people, or at least some background trees or something in the
    shot gives a sense of scale, which helps with this subject. But the
    overriding problem with your shots, other than incorrect exposure, is
    that you seem to have concentrated on the plants in the foreground
    rather than the waterfall!
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
    "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:

    > Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    > They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    >
    > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
    >
    > What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    > just a bad subject?
    >
    > This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    > took it as an example.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg

    I think you just answered one question. Don't take pictures where
    everyone else does. When I was a kid my uncle/photographer told me
    "Before to take a shot, look right below you on the ground. If you see
    gum, footprints or cigarette butts then don't take the shot".

    Nice framing though. The only slightly soft focus background hurts me.

    >
    > I took about 4 versions of this one at different shutter speeds.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla04.jpg

    My eye does not know where to go. The falls slightly clipped by the
    leaves distracts me.

    >
    > Here are some others. There is a steady stream of people
    > through this area. Probably could have got it empty if I had
    > stayed there several hours.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla02.jpg
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla03.jpg

    (The fact that the woman in front of the falls is taking a picture is an
    automatic turn off for me because it shows it is such an obvious shot)

    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla05.jpg

    Sometimes there is nothing you can do so you stop hanging around and
    explore instead. You can't always take the picture.

    >
    > -Mike
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mike Warren wrote:


    >
    > What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    > just a bad subject?

    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fallsbw.jpg

    Would look better if it wasn't edited from a downsampled jpeg.


    --

    Stacey
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Derek Fountain wrote:
    > http://www.derekfountain.org/photos/holidays/usa_2005/cairns/_cairns.html/images/img_1283.jpg.html

    Derek,

    Did you use a polarizer here? I find I need one in order to get a rich
    blue sky and green foliage like in your shots.

    > http://www.derekfountain.org/photos/holidays/usa_2005/cairns/_cairns.html/images/img_1287.jpg.html

    Including part of the waterfall's reflection in this shot is a nice
    touch. I often do that myself with other subjects near a body of
    water.

    Mark
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Hello Mike,

    Nice shots! I have a few ideas.

    How much have you experimented with cropping in order to change the
    framing/composition of the shots? A quick way to do this is just to
    resize the browser window when displaying them on your computer. Then
    when you see something you like, go for the final cut in Photoshop or
    whatever editing software you use.

    In photos with people, crop out the bottom so that they appear along
    the bottom of the photo. To my eye, at least, I find this helps with
    MillaMilla02.jpg

    Ellinjaa01-Edit.jpg is my favorite of the lot. The person is in the
    way, but I find that cropping it horizontally, at her shoulders, helps
    a lot (and you hardly notice the blurry head that is left in the corner
    if you do this). Love the similarity in pattern between the tree
    branches and some of the water streams.

    Leaves tend to produce glare, but using a polarizer helps give them a
    richer, greener color.

    HTH,

    Mark
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla02.jpg

    I like this one the best, but without the people would have been better.
    Also, a quick crop to get the waterfall a bit away from the center of the
    photo (and hence a bit closer to the rule of thirds) also seemed better to
    me - but hey, that's just my opinion, and may or may not reflect upon
    reality. : )

    steve
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Some nice photos here - but I really dislike the convention for slow
    shutter speeds when photographing waterfalls or moving water generally.
    The 'cotton wool' effect is NOT how it looks in reality - the water
    should look WET and TURBULENT - that's my opinion anyway.

    Denis Boisclair
    Cheshire, UK
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that to your
    advantage.
    Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type ,
    so for me your shots are quite excellent.
    Putting human inside the frame somehow makes the picture more alive.

    =bob=


    "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
    message news:4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    > They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    >
    > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article
    <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:

    > Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    > Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that to your
    > advantage.
    > Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type ,

    Boring.

    > so for me your shots are quite excellent.
    > Putting human inside the frame somehow makes the picture more alive.
    >
    > =bob=
    >
    >
    > "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
    > message news:4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > > Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    > > They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    > >
    > > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
    message news:4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    > They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    >
    > These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    > I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
    >
    > What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    > just a bad subject?
    >
    > This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    > took it as an example.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg

    You shot this at f5.6, wich mean you can't get any hint of DOF for this huge
    difference in subject depth.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:kz8rt3-C212CD.16591521082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > In article
    > <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
    >
    >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that to
    >> your
    >> advantage.
    >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type ,
    >
    > Boring.

    Not as boring and useless as your comment...
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Hi Mike,

    <<What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it just a bad
    subject?

    This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only took it as an
    example.
    >>

    I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the composition
    (I've never been so I don't know what alternatives you had <g>) but a quick
    look in Elements shows slight underexposure, which can be corrected using
    Levels, and you could tweak the yellows and reds whilst you are on. I had a
    play with the image and can send you a copy if you want - I'm no expert so
    treat it very much as a starting point.

    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //
    PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Derek Fountain wrote:

    Hi Derek,

    Thanks for the feedback.

    > Getting people, or at least some background trees or something in the
    > shot gives a sense of scale, which helps with this subject. But the
    > overriding problem with your shots, other than incorrect exposure, is
    > that you seem to have concentrated on the plants in the foreground
    > rather than the waterfall!

    Incorrect exposure? Or do you mean I should have used a slower
    shutter speed.

    I suppose I should have performed some basic edits before posting
    them. I wasn't actually thinking of technical issues when I asked
    for feedback. I just hit the auto convert button on Nikon View.

    Here's another one.
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Ellinjaa01-Edit.jpg

    I don't have a remote shutter release so had to use the self timer.
    I pressed the shutter release and stepped back from the camera
    to wait for the timer to fire. At that point I noticed a group of
    people were waiting behind me and one woman had decided that
    I had finished and walked up to the falls.

    -Mike
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    kz8rt3 wrote:
    >> This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    >> took it as an example.
    >> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg
    >
    > I think you just answered one question. Don't take pictures where
    > everyone else does. When I was a kid my uncle/photographer told me
    > "Before to take a shot, look right below you on the ground. If you see
    > gum, footprints or cigarette butts then don't take the shot".
    >
    > Nice framing though. The only slightly soft focus background hurts me.

    This is a quick edit of the picture.
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01-Edit.jpg
    Any better?

    Thanks for your feedback.

    -Mike
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <4309122e$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
    "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:

    > kz8rt3 wrote:
    > >> This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    > >> took it as an example.
    > >> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg
    > >
    > > I think you just answered one question. Don't take pictures where
    > > everyone else does. When I was a kid my uncle/photographer told me
    > > "Before to take a shot, look right below you on the ground. If you see
    > > gum, footprints or cigarette butts then don't take the shot".
    > >
    > > Nice framing though. The only slightly soft focus background hurts me.
    >
    > This is a quick edit of the picture.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01-Edit.jpg
    > Any better?
    >
    > Thanks for your feedback.
    >
    > -Mike

    I don't know. That flower still bugs me. My eye keeps going to it. I
    think the red contrasts with the green and it makes that corner heavy.

    BTW, I don't think photographs are good or bad. I just like them or not.
    An you'll find when you keep making images you feel that you're old work
    did not communicate as well. Keep shooting, that's all.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <1JiOe.8100$Us5.5089@fed1read02>,
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:kz8rt3-C212CD.16591521082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > > In article
    > > <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    > > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    > >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that to
    > >> your
    > >> advantage.
    > >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type ,
    > >
    > > Boring.
    >
    > Not as boring and useless as your comment...

    The idea is boring to me. It has been overdone. It was not an insult to
    the person, just the idea. Sometimes critiques are blunt. That does not
    make them useless.

    You are not your photographs.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:kz8rt3-40A6FC.10252622082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > In article <1JiOe.8100$Us5.5089@fed1read02>,
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:kz8rt3-C212CD.16591521082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    >> > In article
    >> > <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    >> > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    >> >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that
    >> >> to
    >> >> your
    >> >> advantage.
    >> >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type
    >> >> ,
    >> >
    >> > Boring.
    >>
    >> Not as boring and useless as your comment...
    >
    > The idea is boring to me. It has been overdone. It was not an insult to
    > the person, just the idea. Sometimes critiques are blunt. That does not
    > make them useless.

    He asked for things that might have made his shot better.
    You offer: "Boring"
    Don't pretend that's critique.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    > Incorrect exposure? Or do you mean I should have used a slower
    > shutter speed.

    I thought they were all a bit dark. I guess it depends on the light you
    had to play with, but I'd have thought that north Queensland isn't
    generally short of light!

    As redbelly correctly spotted, I did use a polariser to boost the
    colours and help slow down the shutter to get the silky effect. That
    silky effect is common to the point of cliche with waterfalls, but the
    alternative is grainy water frozen in place, which looks a lot worse in
    my opinion.

    > Here's another one.
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/Ellinjaa01-Edit.jpg
    >
    > I don't have a remote shutter release so had to use the self timer.
    > I pressed the shutter release and stepped back from the camera
    > to wait for the timer to fire.

    Well, whadaya know? I have a feeling we did the same tour... :

    http://www.derekfountain.org/photos/holidays/usa_2005/cairns/_cairns.html/images/img_1289.jpg.html

    Mine is a composition of two shots, both taken on self timer like yours.
    I was right into the sun, so I stopped right down to get a very dark
    shot with the sky set close to right (i.e. blue) and then took another
    to get the waterfall right. It's still not great with all that flare
    (must remember to clean the filter when shooting waterfalls!) but
    considering the circumstances I was quite pleased with it.

    I think your issue is really composition. You have the waterfall tucked
    away in the top corner of the frame and the rocks and debris nicely
    focused in the bottom third! Just a guess, but are you trying too hard
    to follow the "rule of thirds"? Still, the water is silky, which you
    were clearly trying for, and the waterfall is better exposed in this one.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Stacey wrote:
    >> What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    >> just a bad subject?
    >
    >> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg
    >
    > http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fallsbw.jpg
    >
    > Would look better if it wasn't edited from a downsampled jpeg.

    Thanks Stacey. Here's a higher res one:
    http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01-Edit.jpg

    I have a thing for B&W. I guess it come from my early darkroom
    days, but I don't personally think it adds anything to this particular
    picture.

    -Mike
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mike Warren wrote:
    > Here's a higher res one:
    > http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01-Edit.jpg

    Added punch, boosted contrast.
    http://img346.imageshack.us/img346/2158/millamilla01edit23gg.jpg


    --
    imp
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    redbelly wrote:

    > How much have you experimented with cropping in order to change the
    > framing/composition of the shots?

    Yes. I haven't found any crops that appeal to me.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    -Mike
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla02.jpg
    >
    > I like this one the best,

    Thanks.

    > but without the people would have been better.

    I think so too, but others disagree. I really wanted to get some
    shots without people but there was a steady stream of them
    walking up to the falls.


    -Mike
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    > Some nice photos here -

    Thanks

    > but I really dislike the convention for slow shutter speeds
    > when photographing waterfalls or moving water generally.

    It is a cliché, but I like it if the mood of the picture dictates it.

    > The 'cotton wool' effect is NOT how it looks in reality

    Some would say the blur reflects the movement of the water. :-)

    -Mike
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    PcB wrote:
    > I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the
    > composition (I've never been so I don't know what alternatives you
    > had <g>) but a quick look in Elements shows slight underexposure,

    The exposure comments by you and Derek interest me. Have you
    had a chance to look at the couple of edits I posted? Are they still
    under exposed?

    The first lot were just dumped by Nikon View and I didn't do anything
    to them. I was only thinking about compositional improvments. If my
    exposures are off then I need to rethink the technical side of my
    photograqphy. I thought I had that side pretty much sorted out. :-)

    > I had a play with the image and can send you a copy if you want

    I would like to see what you did. Are you able to post it somewhere?
    Otherwise, if you want to email it to me you will need to remove the
    obvious spam trap from my reply address.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    -Mike
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mike,

    Must admit I didn't look at your edits so apologies in advance if I am
    wasting your time here.

    <<I would like to see what you did. Are you able to post it somewhere?>>

    I have dropped a copy onto the following page:
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/PCB_MW_Mila.htm

    As I said, I'm just setting out myself so I guess I would welcome *your*
    comments as well <g>.

    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //
    PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Mark² wrote:
    > "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote
    > in message
    > news:4308821d$0$5318$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    >> Here are a few pictures of Milla Milla waterfall I took recently.
    >> They have not been edited in any way except scaling.
    >>
    >> These are typical of the pictures I take and the reason
    >> I haven't bothered to create a web album yet.
    >>
    >> What could I have done to get better pictures? Or is it
    >> just a bad subject?
    >>
    >> This is *the* picture everyone who goes there takes. I only
    >> took it as an example.
    >> http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/MillaMilla01.jpg
    >
    > You shot this at f5.6, wich mean you can't get any hint of DOF for
    > this huge difference in subject depth.

    Fair cop, Guv. Basically, I walked up to the spot, plonked the tripod
    down and pressed the shutter. Then I said "That's got the obligatory
    shot out of the way. What can I do now?". :-)

    -Mike
  29. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    PcB wrote:
    > I have dropped a copy onto the following page:
    > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/PCB_MW_Mila.htm
    >
    > As I said, I'm just setting out myself so I guess I would welcome
    > *your* comments as well <g>.

    It comes down to different tastes (or possibly monitor calibrations).
    I find your edit a bit too bright and saturated but next to yours Mine
    looks too dark. Somewhere in the middle would probably be best to
    me.

    It's funny that this picture is the most commented one. I only took
    it as an example of the most common angle of that waterfall. Just
    figured I may as well take it while I was there. I took 29 shots there
    that day and posted some I thought were typical of them.

    -Mike
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Hi Mike,

    <<It comes down to different tastes >> highly likely.
    <<or possibly monitor calibrations>> also highly likely - I am running off
    an old Digital monitor, though it has been calibrated with the Adobe
    software, as my regular one went *phut*. My version looks better on my
    monitor <g>.
    <<It's funny that this picture is the most commented one>> could be because
    it's also the first one .... ? I reckon this would be the first one everyone
    opened.

    You'll just have to go back and re-shoot armed with your new knowledge.

    Paul
    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //
    PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <31pOe.8185$Us5.6021@fed1read02>,
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:kz8rt3-40A6FC.10252622082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > > In article <1JiOe.8100$Us5.5089@fed1read02>,
    > > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:kz8rt3-C212CD.16591521082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > >> > In article
    > >> > <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    > >> > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    > >> >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that
    > >> >> to
    > >> >> your
    > >> >> advantage.
    > >> >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type
    > >> >> ,
    > >> >
    > >> > Boring.
    > >>
    > >> Not as boring and useless as your comment...
    > >
    > > The idea is boring to me. It has been overdone. It was not an insult to
    > > the person, just the idea. Sometimes critiques are blunt. That does not
    > > make them useless.
    >
    > He asked for things that might have made his shot better.
    > You offer: "Boring"
    > Don't pretend that's critique.

    I was not replying to the OP when I said that.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:kz8rt3-A64975.21482722082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > In article <31pOe.8185$Us5.6021@fed1read02>,
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:kz8rt3-40A6FC.10252622082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    >> > In article <1JiOe.8100$Us5.5089@fed1read02>,
    >> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message
    >> >> news:kz8rt3-C212CD.16591521082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    >> >> > In article
    >> >> > <430888c7$0$17443$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
    >> >> > "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    >> >> >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use
    >> >> >> that
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> your
    >> >> >> advantage.
    >> >> >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow
    >> >> >> type
    >> >> >> ,
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Boring.
    >> >>
    >> >> Not as boring and useless as your comment...
    >> >
    >> > The idea is boring to me. It has been overdone. It was not an insult to
    >> > the person, just the idea. Sometimes critiques are blunt. That does
    >> > not
    >> > make them useless.
    >>
    >> He asked for things that might have made his shot better.
    >> You offer: "Boring"
    >> Don't pretend that's critique.
    >
    > I was not replying to the OP when I said that.

    Yes, I see that now.
    Oops.
    Sorry about that.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Derek Fountain wrote:
    > I thought they were all a bit dark. I guess it depends on the light
    > you had to play with, but I'd have thought that north Queensland isn't
    > generally short of light!

    It was an overcast day.

    > Well, whadaya know? I have a feeling we did the same tour... :

    I live in Cairns but work takes up a lot of my time. I don't often
    get a chance to take a whole day off.

    > I think your issue is really composition. You have the waterfall
    > tucked away in the top corner of the frame and the rocks and debris
    > nicely focused in the bottom third! Just a guess, but are you trying
    > too hard to follow the "rule of thirds"?

    I never actually think about the rule of thirds when shooting.
    I consider it more a suggestion than rule. I just go for framing that
    feels right.

    -Mike
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    PcB wrote:
    > You'll just have to go back and re-shoot armed with your new
    > knowledge.

    It's a bit over an hour drive from where I live so I will be. There are a
    lot of waterfalls (and other tourist attractions) in the area so it's best
    to make it a whole day trip.

    I shot a about 170 pictures that day.

    -Mike
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    If you top posted like a normal person you might have noticed earlier...


    >
    > Yes, I see that now.
    > Oops.
    > Sorry about that.
    >
    >
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >> "kz8rt3" <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote in message

    >> >> Increasing the aperture would be nice to get a greater depth.
    >> >> Your 18-70 DX lens can produce sharp images at f/8 - f/11 , use that to
    >> >> your
    >> >> advantage.
    >> >> Also for waterfall shots, I normally loves those silky water flow type ,
    >> >
    >> > Boring.
    >>
    >> Not as boring and useless as your comment...
    >
    >The idea is boring to me. It has been overdone. It was not an insult to

    Another boring and self-serving excuse.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    rfischer@sonic.net
  37. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
    >Some nice photos here - but I really dislike the convention for slow
    >shutter speeds when photographing waterfalls or moving water generally.
    >The 'cotton wool' effect is NOT how it looks in reality - the water
    >should look WET and TURBULENT - that's my opinion anyway.

    I tried this recently - shots of waterfalls with different exposures.
    The result was educational.

    Three shots of the same falls with different exposures.

    http://rfischer.smugmug.com/photos/33706763-L.jpg
    http://rfischer.smugmug.com/photos/33706768-L.jpg
    http://rfischer.smugmug.com/photos/33706772-L.jpg

    The first one, with the longest exposure (1/6th), doesn't quite work
    because the effect doesn't fit with the rocks and pine trees. The
    last one at 140th looks too static.

    To my eye the desired effect depends a lot on the context. If you
    want a dreamy, languid effect then longer exposures work better.
    But for a mountain waterfall the effect doesn't quite fit.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    rfischer@sonic.net
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Waterfall Cameras