Helpful Posts: A glimpse at the tallest single drop waterfall east of the Rocky Mountains, USA! It dropps 215 ft (66m), making it 33 feet (10m) TALLER than Niagara Falls!
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread: Taughannock Falls State Park
-
13th March 2016, 01:26 AM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- Finger Lakes, New York
- Posts
- 18
- Real Name
- Alex
Taughannock Falls State Park
-
13th March 2016, 02:34 AM #2
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- WNY
- Posts
- 36,716
- Real Name
- John
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
Nice captures.
-
13th March 2016, 08:31 AM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Kerala, India
- Posts
- 13,862
- Real Name
- Nandakumar
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
Superb shots
-
13th March 2016, 09:38 AM #4
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- North West of England
- Posts
- 7,178
- Real Name
- John
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
The second shot is the one for me. Impressive body of water. Glad you didn't go for a longer shutter speed.
-
13th March 2016, 08:24 PM #5
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- Finger Lakes, New York
- Posts
- 18
- Real Name
- Alex
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
To be honest...i couldnt have gone with a slower shutter...i didnt own any ND filters yet when i was there.
-
13th March 2016, 08:49 PM #6
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Location
- northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
- Posts
- 19,064
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
Welcome to CiC, Alex!
The second one displays quite attractive nice light and a wonderful composition. The detail that bothers me the most about the first one is that all of the people are "cut off" at their waist; if it had been possible to include all of their feet, they would have been a nice contribution to the scene and an additional display of scale.
For future reference, using the second image as an example, you could have reduced the light at least six stops depending on the smallest aperture setting on your lens by using a smaller aperture and a lower ISO value. Your shutter would have been no faster than 1/15 second, which probably would have worked very nicely. If you had a polarizer filter with you and didn't use it, you probably could have reduced the light by at least another 1 1/2 stops, resulting in a shutter speed of about 1/5 second.
Originally Posted by LightBucket
-
13th March 2016, 10:16 PM #7
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Posts
- 2,420
- Real Name
- Joe
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
+1 to mike's comments. Absent the ability to include the full height of the spectators, I would have considered cloning them out. Great shot nevertheless!
-
14th March 2016, 06:32 AM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Chesterfield, Missouri/Melbourne, Australia
- Posts
- 17,827
- Real Name
- Izzie
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
I prefer #2 myself. Good framing, good composition. I like natural falling water without the milky smoothie that some overdo with either ND filters or very slow shutter speed. Not a fan of that...This one looks excellent.
-
14th March 2016, 12:42 PM #9
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
- Location
- Swansea, Wales
- Posts
- 3,122
- Real Name
- Matt
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
Great shots Alex
-
14th March 2016, 02:33 PM #10
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Location
- Ohio
- Posts
- 3,242
- Real Name
- Jim
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
That's a nice looking waterfall.
-
14th March 2016, 04:53 PM #11
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Turkey
- Posts
- 12,779
- Real Name
- Binnur
Re: Taughannock Falls State Park
Welcome Alex, I really like #2
Reply With Quote