Ball's Falls

[joebranko]

Ball's Falls in Jordan Valley, Ontario. This is a merge of 3 bracketed shots at 1/20" to smooth the water, and make the flow look more impressive.





Twenty Mile Creek feeding Ball's Falls

[Manfred M]

The camera looks level in the first shot, but I suspect you need to rotate your shot counterclockwise on the second shot as your camera does not look like it was level for that shot.

There are some very interesting shades of blue and purple in the rocks on the first shot. Are they really those colours? The bright patch of water in the lower right corner is adding a bit of a distraction and drawing the viewer's eye to it. I suspect the sunlight was hitting there, but the water was in the shade elsewhere.

[Shadowman]

Nice set.

[joebranko]

The camera looks level in the first shot, but I suspect you need to rotate your shot counterclockwise on the second shot as your camera does not look like it was level for that shot.

There are some very interesting shades of blue and purple in the rocks on the first shot. Are they really those colours? The bright patch of water in the lower right corner is adding a bit of a distraction and drawing the viewer's eye to it. I suspect the sunlight was hitting there, but the water was in the shade elsewhere.

Thanks Manfred. I did have a lot of difficulty with the level in this shot My camera has a level indicator on it and I think is showed level, but I am not 100% sure as I was leaning under the side rail of the bridge at the time. I could not find anything vertical to judge by, Also the riverbed had a few small plunge pools at odd angles which created problems for me in judging level. I will have another look.
Yes the colours are real! I did apply some saturation to blue and purple to enhance them.
Thanks for pointing out the bright spot in the water. If I go back there it will have to be later in the day (or earlier) or overcast.

[joebranko]

Nice set.

Thanks John.

[Manfred M]

I did have a lot of difficulty with the level in this shot.

I carry a hot-shoe mountable bubble level in my camera bag, rather than using the one built into the camera. I find that helps a lot in those situations.



I got mine from eBay from China, so they are just a few dollars.

[DanK]

I could not find anything vertical to judge b

yes, these sorts of images are tough to level, but the surface of the water can't be tilted or the water would run to the side.
It's tilted almost 7 degrees, so straightening requires a substantial crop. Here's a rough cut, maybe a tad overcorrected:

[joebranko]

yes, these sorts of images are tough to level, but the surface of the water can't be tilted or the water would run to the side.
It's tilted almost 7 degrees, so straightening requires a substantial crop. Here's a rough cut, maybe a tad overcorrected:

Thanks Dan. My problem is deciding which 2 points in the water to use while applying the kevelling tool in Lightroom. If there is an obstruction under the surface, as in the case of this shot, presenting a line on the surface, as in this case, and the obstruction is closer to the camera on one side compared to the other, if that line is used with the level tool then the result could be off kilter. This is where I have difficulty in deciding when it is level. In this case I chose looking at the reflection of a tree on the bank of the river and matching its angle of reflection. Having said all that I feel that your edit looks more correct than my original. If you disagree with my analysis please let me know.

[DanK]

Joe,

I agree. I have had images of this sort for which a true level looked off, for example, because of a shoreline that is on a diagonal. However, it seems clear to me that your original is way off. Water seeks the lowest level, and it would flow left to right in yours. If there is no obvious line to use for leveling, the best one can do is trial and error. In this case, I just drew a line in photoshop and used that for an arbitrary rotation, and it came out reasonably close. I sometimes modify an initial attempt by making small changes to the numerical value. They have to be small changes; half a degree is quite visible.

Dan

[joebranko]

Joe,

I agree. I have had images of this sort for which a true level looked off, for example, because of a shoreline that is on a diagonal. However, it seems clear to me that your original is way off. Water seeks the lowest level, and it would flow left to right in yours. If there is no obvious line to use for leveling, the best one can do is trial and error. In this case, I just drew a line in photoshop and used that for an arbitrary rotation, and it came out reasonably close. I sometimes modify an initial attempt by making small changes to the numerical value. They have to be small changes; half a degree is quite visible.

Dan

Thanks again Dan. I accept that it is not level. What I don't see is a guideline to use in these cases when there is not a horizon or a construction with a reliable vertical or horizontal to use.

I have tried a different level based on a small structure (?) barely visible in the background and made the adjustment on that. Here it is:

[joebranko]

The bright patch of water in the lower right corner is adding a bit of a distraction and drawing the viewer's eye to it. I suspect the sunlight was hitting there, but the water was in the shade elsewhere.

I have another shot of the falls which I am presenting in a 16x9 format so as to crop out the bright spot in the water. Please let me know what you think of it.

[Rufus]

The composition is different but in loosing the bright spot in the bottom right corner of post #1 the image in post #11 also loses the context and the colourful rock strata of the rounded "devil's punch bowl" into which the water falls.

I like the shutter speed used in post #11 as the falling water is less milky yet conveys the water falling; but this is just a personal preference. The exposure looks set for the foreground rather than the subject. Perhaps you could lighten the image in post #11, while masking the existing foreground, without blowing out the highlights in the water?

[Manfred M]

Joe - this is a completely different image than the first one of the waterfalls and has a somewhat different set of challenges.

The bright foreground overshadows the subject, the falls (I assume these are the main subject) are relatively dark and fade out of the shot. Burning down the highlights and dodging the shadow areas gives the whole image a totally different flavour.



I suspect that this image might need a bit of a counter-clockwise rotation too.

[Wavelength]

Great image

[joebranko]

Thanks Manfred. I see your points.

[joebranko]

Thanks David. I will try that.1

[joebranko]

The composition is different but in loosing the bright spot in the bottom right corner of post #1 the image in post #11 also loses the context and the colourful rock strata of the rounded "devil's punch bowl" into which the water falls.

Did not think you knew of the 'Devil's Punch Bowl' located near my house which displays similar strata as Ball's falls.

[joebranko]

The bright foreground overshadows the subject, the falls (I assume these are the main subject) are relatively dark and fade out of the shot. Burning down the highlights and dodging the shadow areas gives the whole image a totally different flavour.



I suspect that this image might need a bit of a counter-clockwise rotation too.

Is this better?

[joebranko]

Perhaps you could lighten the image in post #11, while masking the existing foreground, without blowing out the highlights in the water?

How is this?

[Rufus]

How is this?

I like this version, Joe. The far bank and rock strata now have more detail and the intensity of the foreground has reduced. I am not sure whether you have rotated the image as Manfred suggested, but my perception is that the water is falling as I would expect so it is absolutely fine to my eye.