How could I have made these pictures better?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sidebar Sidebar
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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/
 
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
 
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
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
>
>
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom