Balls Falls

[joebranko]

I have photographed this before in the summer, but I felt it was worth another visit.

[Shadowman]

Nicely framed.

[selig1656]

well captured

[Geoff F]

I wonder about a 4 x 5 ratio crop to remove those distracting twigs on the right side ? Or possibly a square crop.

[DanK]

I'm afraid this one doesn't work for me.

I wonder about a 4 x 5 ratio crop to remove those distracting twigs on the right side ? Or possibly a square crop.

I had the same thought, particularly since the falls occupies only half the frame. However, I still think it is problematic. This seems to me to be one of those many good views that is damaged by clutter that one can't get rid of. Even if you take out the distracting tree on the right, you still have branches sticking into the composition from the bottom right and center left.

This happens to me all the time: I find a view that looks great while standing there--because we can ignore all the distracting stuff in the foreground--but doesn't make all that good an image because of the foreground clutter. Sometimes one can move to solve or lessen the problem, but in this case, that wasn't possible.

Also, where was your focus point? You shot at f/22. That should give you a very big depth of field, but probably a bit of softness from diffraction. The branches in the front seem fairly sharp, but the rocks in the back look a little soft (although at this size, it's hard to tell). Or is there a bit of motion blur? I can't really tell, but it doesn't seem that sharp to me.

[joebranko]

Thanks all for the comments. I don't really know why I made the decisions that I took in this shot and also in the processing of it. I remember opting to leave the branches on the right because I liked the blue coloured rocks behind it on the upper right. I really don't recall why I chose f 22 for this shot. I know it was hand held as I had not taken my tripod so there is probably motion blur.
I remember deciding on a long exposure and feeling I could avoid motion blur at 1/15" hand held. Oh well, better next time.

[DanK]

I know it was hand held as I had not taken my tripod so there is probably motion blur.

Does your lens have image stabilization? If you had it turned on and had a good stable shooting position, you probably could have gotten that shot without motion blur. It all depends on how stable you are when shooting, but the old guideline for shooting without IS would be a minimum of 1/(FL*1.6) for your APS-C camera. You shot at 18mm, so a good starting point for a minimum shutter speed without IS would be about 1/30. If your lens has IS, you should be able to go a few stops slower. However, if you didn't have the camera well braced, etc., it still could be motion blur.

My main point about f/22 is that even though it gives you some diffraction, it gives you huge depth of field. The online calculators I have looked at don't have your camera, but using a 60D, if you focused 12 meters into the scene, DOF would extend roughly from half a meter to infinity. So it puzzled me that the rocks didn't look sharp.

[joebranko]

Does your lens have image stabilization?

My lens does have image stabilization, and it was on.


My main point about f/22 is that even though it gives you some diffraction, it gives you huge depth of field. The online calculators I have looked at don't have your camera, but using a 60D, if you focused 12 meters into the scene, DOF would extend roughly from half a meter to infinity. So it puzzled me that the rocks didn't look sharp. I don't know the answer to this also.

I had taken another exposure which eliminated the branches on the right, and perhaps it is a belter shot. Your comments are appreciated.

[Jim A]

Much, much better, to me, Joe, which disavows anything remotely to do with landscapes, etc, etc. So that this comment with "a grain of salt".

[Manfred M]

Joe - yes, this is better, but unfortunately there are still some significant distractions in the shot and you have completely changed the nature of the image as we see less of the surrounding environment.

Sometimes the shot we want just isn't there because we can't get a "clean" shot. When I do landscape work I generally don't bother taking the shot if I cannot get it without too many distracting elements that I can remove in post. I a situation like this where there is wildlife and a gorge one can fall into, it may be challenging (if not impossible) to find a shooting position that give you a clean view.

If you ever look at Ansel Adams's vehicles he took on his photo shoots, he had a large roof platform so that he could get above the ground-level distractions to get a clean view of his subject.

[Wavelength]

I like both, yet the second one more