Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on May 26, 2017, 12:04:58 am

Title: Water column
Post by: sdwilsonsct on May 26, 2017, 12:04:58 am
Either? Neither? Feedback welcome.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on May 26, 2017, 03:55:03 am
#1 for me. I see enough waterfall, and more interesting sky (compared to #2).
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: francois on May 26, 2017, 04:29:14 am
#1 for me too but not by much. Both are really nice shots.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: churly on May 26, 2017, 06:43:42 am
I think they both work well.  Right now I'm leaning toward #2 because of the added sense of height.  I may change my mind next time I look.
Chuck
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: muntanela on May 26, 2017, 08:37:55 am
I'm leaning toward #2   

Me too.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: pegelli on May 26, 2017, 08:42:57 am
Both are nice shots, but #2 is my favourite. Probably the better sense of height and the additional framing by the rock on the right.

Title: Re: Water column
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on May 26, 2017, 11:31:24 am
#2 has a beautiful graphic design. A tad more space on the left would have been desirable but this is a quibble.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 26, 2017, 06:26:43 pm
Another vote for #2.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: schertz on May 26, 2017, 06:36:12 pm
I prefer the second one compositionally, in particular that you can see the top of the waterfall. The first feels like if cuts off too abruptly. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the blur you brushed onto the sky. I probably helps the water stand out, but the edges are quite visible and not well done.

Mike
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: sdwilsonsct on May 27, 2017, 11:22:48 am
...I'm not a fan of the blur you brushed onto the sky. I probably helps the water stand out, but the edges are quite visible and not well done....

Thanks, Mike, I'll revisit the blurring.

On the other hand, I wonder if disconnecting the column from the rock at the top, as at the bottom, strengthens the graphic design. Edit attached.

Many thanks to all for the comments.
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on May 27, 2017, 12:27:03 pm
On the other hand, I wonder if disconnecting the column from the rock at the top, as at the bottom, strengthens the graphic design. Edit attached.

i think it probably does, yes. The horizon in the distance appears to slope quite markedly down to the left, which I find a little unsettling.

Where is this?

Jeremy
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: sdwilsonsct on May 27, 2017, 06:57:29 pm
i think it probably does, yes. The horizon in the distance appears to slope quite markedly down to the left, which I find a little unsettling.

Where is this?

Jeremy

I was waiting for someone to catch the slope. I straightened the column, which tilted the background.

This is Seljalandsfoss. I think you posted an image of this Jeremy?
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on May 28, 2017, 03:09:55 am
I was waiting for someone to catch the slope. I straightened the column, which tilted the background.

This is Seljalandsfoss. I think you posted an image of this Jeremy?

I thought it was. I didn't have the courage to suggest it!

I've posted a couple, yes, taken from the top of the mound to the right of the fall. The ones I posted were long-exposure shots with blurred water. Yours keeps texture in the water, which I like.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Water column
Post by: sdwilsonsct on May 28, 2017, 04:37:08 pm
...The ones I posted were long-exposure shots with blurred water. Yours keeps texture in the water, which I like.

Thanks, Jeremy. This was taken on a family trip: no time and no tripod, so a very short exposure. Years ago I saw a shot of Skogafoss with much texture which was inspiring.

I had a PM request for the colour version. I attach the OOC file.