More Bad Weather Shots

[kdoc856]

I was so impressed by the recent thread of bad-weather images that I was inspired to try my hand. On a morning of frozen rain, 1 degree C, and 30 km/hr wind I headed out.

My assistant (my wife) refused to go (she is smarter than I) so I grabbed my home-made rain sleeve and umbrella and wrestled my kit to location. Not too surprisingly, I had the whole place to myself. I used a tripod and kept the IS turned ON because of the stiff wind. Between being soaked, frozen and stumbling on the ice, these are two of the results. Any thoughts appreciated and feel free to offer up any edits (just share your techniques if yours is better .

[ScoutR]

What a lovely spot, these really need to be clicked on and viewed full size. I'd say it was worth the trip. Sounds like you go here quite often, how do these shots compare to others in different light. If you've posted some, I may have missed them, could you provide a link. I'd like to see the difference.
I especially like the second shot, the only thing I might try is to lighten the shadows a bit and perhaps crop the left (screen) side to the tip of the droplet laden branch at the top. You could play with this for hours and get a lot of different looks but not necessarily better. For instance, I might try darkening the top above the falls with a graduated filter and high sharpening and clarity to make the droplets on the branch stand out. I'd probably try sharpening and increasing luminance on the evergreens too, but none of these things will make it any better, just different. It's the type of shot that is better edited by the person who was there and knows how it actually looked.
Long story shot, glad you made the trip.

Wendy

[ANSORB]

These are good images and if they were mine I would be pretty happy. The only thing I might do in post processing is put a little more variation in to the colour of the rocks. I tried it in Photoshop CS5 and, kept within reason, I think it adds more interest. I would post the result but I have a issue with posting images at the moment in that they rarely look the same as when I finish with them in Photoshop. (If anyone can explain this to me I would be grateful. They are always posted in sRGB IEC6 1966-2.1)

So it is probably better to explain what I did. (It assumes you have access to the LAB colourspace)

1.Convert to LAB (flattening if requested).
2.Duplicate the background layer
3.Change the layer blend mode to overlay. This boosts both colours and contrast but you only want the colours. So:
4.Double click on the duplicate (not the lable, just to the right of it) to bring up Layer Styles
5.Unclick the L channel which will prevent all changes to luminosity and leaves you with the overlay colour boost only.

If you add a curves adjustment layer you now have enormous control over the colours and you could also try other blending modes on the duplicate layer to see if you like them better. You may think, as I did, that the greenery becomes a bit objectionable but the "a" channel can make an excellent mask for the foliage. (If you are not familiar with the Lab colour space it may not look as if it could. The Lab clour channels look very strange and quite unlike what you see in RGB). However, if you duplicate the "a" channel and apply a steep curve you will have a good mask of all things green in the image.

If you are familiar with Lab you probably know this technique or something like it but others might find it useful.

[/I][/I]

[Mike Buckley]

These photos are so good that any changes made to them are purely a matter of personal taste rather than improvements. Speaking of that, I'm surprised that my reaction to the small waterfall in the second photo is that it is distracting.

It's the type of shot that is better edited by the person who was there and knows how it actually looked. Wendy

I've got a different take on that, Wendy. Perhaps it's better edited by the person who knew what he or she envisioned before releasing the shutter. My point is that we don't necessarily try to replicate the scene. Instead, we envision the image, release the shutter, and then post-process the image according to our vision.

[jeeperman]

A good set to show just why we should really brave the elements more than we may like to. Very nicely done, Kevin. Had it been dry and sunny I doubt you would be nearly as pleased as I am betting you are.

The one complaint that I have is that there is no potriat oriented image using the rocks and small pool of clear water that I partially see at the bottom of the first image.

[rawill]

Great shots, I think you had one of these in a mini competition.
And if my memory is any good, your picture got the most votes, whereas my contribution got about 14%.

So keep that in mind with my next comment.

For me the shot is really great but there is a but.

I find the water coming over the falls too foamy.
What was the speed.
If I was to take the shot I wouldn't want to change anything except the effect of the speed on the water coming over the falls part of the image.

Just my opinion.

Oh, and I forgot to say, I like the top shot best.
I like the extra foreground.

[Plumcrak]

Kevin, I like the shots as they are. The last time I was there it was 100 degrees with no wind, plus the waterfall was just a trickle. At the time, I would gladly trade for some cooler temps. Well done! I do like the first one better than the second, but just by a smidge.

[FrankMi]

I like both of them Kevin, and although I prefer landscape orientation for landscape images, I think that Paul's vision of a portrait orientation for the first image might just work well as another option.

[kdoc856]

Thank you all for your encouraging comments and excellent suggestions. I will certainly experiment with your suggested adjustments and keep those I find pleasing. There's an endless variety of permutations, and it may come down to mood and fancy.

In keeping with the "bad weather" theme, I intentionally processed in a more subdued fashion than I would have normally.

In fact, I took the one with the water droplets mostly to prove the conditions sucked than for any particular artistic intent.

Mike, I also couldnt decide if I thought the baby falls was an addition or distraction.

Paul, I confess I often neglect the portrait orientation. You see, I am left-handed and our brains dont work correctly, and portrait view always feels so odd to me.

Robin, My personal preference is also toward less foamy water. But non-photographers just seem so doggoned impressed by it that I always include some shots. I also have some more to your preference that I havent included here.

Thanks all for your thoughts.

[terrib]

These are beautiful, Kevin.

What I like about the first one is the extra foreground and the waterfall being more off center. I think the choice of silky water is appropriate in this scene. I tend to like the faster shutter speeds on water too, but here I think what you've done looks restful.

I'm, like you, torn about the small waterfall in the second picture. But I think the droplets on the limbs at the top do more to convey the weather conditions than anything else in the shot. I like them there because of that but I don't think I'd like a crop that would include them and not the small waterfall so I think I'd done the same you did with it. Maybe taking some off the left would focus us toward both waterfalls, giving the small one more weight so it's not just a distraction?? I don't know.

Thanks for sharing! I'd love to go to that place.