Attached is my first attempt at waterfalls and a more serious use of my new A7RIII and 24-105. The location is Kentucky Falls OR. A pretty well know location…so nothing that many folks haven’t seen before.
I am looking for an overall critque from composition, to technical execution to post processing.
I was with my wife and our time was a bit limited otherwise I would have waited for some different light. Ideally I would have liked to see some more definition in the water.
So feel free to share whatever you like…I have a thick skin.
What technical feedback would you like if any?
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.
Hey Pat!
Awesome work especially considering it was your first attempt at waterfalls! you nailed the shutter speed
Overall the image I think the image needs a little bit more focus when it comes to the composition, more specifically the fact that it’s got a lot of very bright things in the top left and foreground (light hitting the trees and rocks)
Here’s a little rough re-work I did which done by dodging those brighter elements - It’s subtle but I think helps draw focus where you want it
Pat, this is pretty nice work for a first attempt at waterfalls. They are harder to do well than many people think. For a first try you did a good job with the shutter speed, which is usually the hardest thing to get right.
Overall, I like the composition. I like the double falls at the bottom, and the way you have framed the falls with the trees on the left and right. One of the toughest things about waterfall composition is deciding how to handle the top of the falls, do you cut it off, or do you show sky or whatever else is above the falls. This is a matter of subjective personal taste, but I often prefer to cut the top of the falls off to keep things cleaner and simpler, unless the stuff above the falls is very interesting. Gary Randall recently posted a waterfall image from the Columbia Gorge that is a good example of how cutting off the falls can work well.
I like what @dalegphoto has done in his rework, it helps to focus the viewers attention. If you are new to shooting waterfalls, then I’d suggest waiting for overcast days when the light is more even and without harsh contrast. You must have a ton of overcast days in Oregon, so plenty of chances for round 2.
Thanks for your very constructive feedback. I hesitated in posting this because I knew it fell short. None the less I was looking for an objective direction in which to not only take this image but others of similar style.
Ideally I would have waited for different lighting but again was with my wife who was getting cold at the time., so I grabbed what I could. In essence this was a very rough draft image.
Your thoughts are right on and I especially appreciate the idea via Gary Randall of not including the top of the waterfalll.
Thanks for taking the time to provide very helpful feedback!
Pat, you should have no worries about posting this, your comment about being a first time waterfall shooter helped to tailor our comments accordingly. Among other things one purpose of this forum is to help others improve, and to share constructive critique and opinions. I pointed you to @Gary_Randall Columbia Gorge image as an example of a well done waterfall image. Study his image and you will get lots of good ideas of how to handle waterfalls.
Ed…thanks I appreciate your words of encouragement. As to the exposure…I prefer a bit more of movement in the water look as opposed to the foamy frothy look. Other than a shutter speed adjustment, is there anything I can do to provide some more definition to the water flow?
I would say that might be the key to improving this image. The composition is fine (except for the root sticking in from the right side). However, there appears to have been a lot of local dodging done to lift some of the darker shadows and perhaps even the shade around the waterfall. The result is that the shade is darker in the upper part of image and lighter below. The dark area on the upper right is overbearing and oppressive so I would look into that. The waterfall area has an unnatural beam look to it which isn’t working for you either.
There are several members here that do waterfalls quite well. In my opinion less is more. My favorite ones have a strong foreground with the waterfall small in the back. A study of leaves with the falls seen through their gap. Or one with ferns. Those more creative compositions are more interesting than a portrait of a falls from top to bottom. The falls are so bright that they will be the center of attention regardless their size.
The water depth, and amount of of flowing water matter too. High volumes of water can sometimes make it difficult to get pleasing results, there can be so much water (like in early spring) that the water loses definition.
But shutter speed primarily controls the look of flowing water, under normal circumstances. With a reasonable water flow, I think shutter speeds of 0.5 seconds to 2.0 seconds usually are a good starting point. That’s why I like shooting waterfalls on overcast or rainy days. Not only do you get even lighting and avoid harsh contrast, but the lower light levels help achieve these longer exposure times.
