Morkel's post from yesterday reminded me to post a waterfall shot from my recent trip. Takkakaw Falls in Yoho National Park, British Columbia, Canada at 254 meters is one of the highest falls in Canada. The spray can be felt for much of the short trail up to the falls.
Canon 7D
16-35 @ 26mm
1/50
f22
ISO 100
EC -1.0
HH from a rock on the side of the river, CP filter and 2 stop GND.
Levels, reverse S curve adjustment, cloned out some tiny people and cropped a little off right and below to remove 2 partial shrubs at bottom in CS5.
Hey Rachel,
In the afternoon....that waterfall get's a rainbow! The image appears a bit dark overall....I know the water is a bit turquoise.....so opening it up a touch will work for me. Comp wise, I think you did very well......you have to choose and it is a huge waterfall! Nice choice of SS too so a minor tweak to the brightness will make this shine!
Nice Rachel, nice choice of shutter speed, makes it feel big and roaring!
I agree about ramping up the color on the water and the foliage.
Artistic license!
Thanks Roman and Dan - Here's a repost, made it a little brighter. This was taken around 3:30 pm but no rainbow. The water in the river was more of a very pale green. Please let me know if you think it's better.
Hi Rachel, I was at this location a number of years ago and it's an impressive sight. I like how you framed the image with the waterfall offset along with just enough top. I shot a similar comp and also got a bit lower to capture more of the stream water. I liked them both. The repost is an improvement to an already well handled image...
Dan - I don't mind but unfortunately the amped colors are nothing like what it looked like that day. My personal preference is for realism. Thanks for trying.
Fine Rachel, it is your photo, however, I think the "realism" in Landscape photos is unrealistic.
It would make a interesting poll here, but I think that post processing (especially Landscape photos) and manipulating colors and contrasts and
a lot of aspects to the image is pretty universal in Landscape photography. I think your photo is nice and how you saw it, and if you don't like to
manipulate your images, that is a fine ethical point of view, I just don't think it is universal by any means and it has never been the rule
in Landscape photography (think Ansel Adams, about as processed as you can get, really).
Dan - when I say I prefer realism in my images that does not mean that I do not use the tools available in PP programs. What I mean is that I use those tools to achieve an image that depicts the place, event, animal, etc how I saw it the time the image was taken (or at least how I remember it). Consequently, I prefer that colors look the way they looked rather than "amped up." I personally don't swap a sky from another day or time into an image, swap the bg for a more pleasing one, add canvas, insert clouds when none were present, and other things along similar lines.
It may be that my views are shaped by the fact that I am a litigator and from an evidence point of view like to be able to trust a photograph as accurately depicting a scene. That seems to be more and more difficult as people and programs get better at manipulating images.
In any event, IMHO, its up to each photographer to determine what types and how much "manipulation" s/he will do to their images. I just prefer that s/he disclose what has been done, especially if it is more along the lines of the things I listed above than if it is dodging, burning, or a contrast boost for example.
It's an impressive sight isn't it? I like your comp Rachel. I can't really tell much difference in your repost vs. the orginal. The water in the stream is a bit over the top for me in Dan's repost.
Takkakaw Falls
Reply With Quote
