zhounder opened this issue on Jun 04, 2005 ยท 7 posts
zhounder posted Sat, 04 June 2005 at 4:11 PM
LostPatrol posted Sat, 04 June 2005 at 4:28 PM
Impressive especially without a pod. Not sure a longer exposure would make it any better in this particular instance (my opinion) if there was less light, it would help a little I wish I had a waterfall like this near me. Is it possible to get a higher POV so that you can get the glasslike still water in the top section? Would probably look great early morning or late afternoon/evening (depending on the sun position) and would give lovely warm tones. Wonderful shot anyway. Sorry I'm a waterfall addict. Simon
solrac_gi_2nd posted Sat, 04 June 2005 at 4:59 PM
May be a useless reply ... but ... I agree with all Simon (~ LostPatrol) said. Carlos.
randyrives posted Sat, 04 June 2005 at 10:04 PM
I think you did a great job without a tripod. Of course a larger version may show different. I would go back and shoot again, just because it looks like a great place to shoot
Davidy posted Sun, 05 June 2005 at 7:25 AM
yeah great shot without the t'pod. Last time I took long exposure wterfall pics I forgot as well, had to use my jumper on a rock to prop it up. If you hadn't said, I wouldn't have known, and yeah as said beofer, maybe with the tripod you could get a higher angle. Great shot anyway, :)
Michelle A. posted Sun, 05 June 2005 at 8:21 AM
I can see where it's a little soft from shooting without a 'pod, but the 1 sec. exposure did a beautiful job on the water.... Doesn't look to bright to me, but I agree that early morning/evening light will do wonders to add a more atmospheric quality to it..... I generally do 1-4 sec exposures on moving water.... depending on the lighting conditions.... You did a great job here..... but definitely go back and shoot again......
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
LostPatrol posted Sun, 05 June 2005 at 1:39 PM
Oops mis-understood again My comment about less light was related to being able to get a longer exposure, and not that the shot was over exposed which it isnt. I agree that a 1-4 second exposure is a good range for flowing water, depending on the light and velocity of the water. Simon