Brook Cascade on Tecumseh

[bikehikeskifish]

OK, here is my first attempt at messing with manual mode. I'm often conflicted on stop-action waterfalls versus motion, and in this case I like the motion. Tecumseh, as most would agree, is not a spectacular peak, so I made the most of what was available. I actually got down in the stream bed, carefully balanced on the rocks, to shoot this little cascade. It might have been 10" tall, tops. I felt it captured the very green nature of this trail, which was rather damp, rather mossy, and quite "woodsy", unlike some trails which are all granite and spruce. I wanted to present the illusion of a bigger falls.



F8 / 1/4 second, hand-held - some blur towards the back. I more interested in compositional critiques and in particular the motion -- 1/4 second was the slowest shot that came out. Slower than that and I was unable to hold it. I considered the self-timer and propping on a rock, but nothing was flat or level enough and still allowed me to get the cascade. I think 1/4 second is probably too slow, as I can see streaks of bubbles 3-6" long which may be distracting?

Tim

 

[Mark Schaefer]

You captured the mossy feel of the area very well. Congratulations on your first use of manual mode. It was a success. There is a pleasing amount of motion blur in the picture. I don't find the bubble streaks at all distracting - they help to convey the motion of the water. Good job hand holding the 1/4 second exposure.

On the composition. It is often said that when you include people or animals in a picture you should place them so that they are looking or walking into the frame. The same applies to water. It should have room to move into and through the frame. The center of your main cascade is about 1/3 of the way from the left margin, and the flow is toward that edge. It would be more effective if the waterfall was 1/3 of the way from the right margin and you included more room for the water to flow. You could either include more on the left, crop the right, or a combination. Similarly including a little less on top and a little more on the bottom would have similar benefit. It is the basic rule of thirds coming to play -- and it does not need to be precisely 1/3 to get the compositional benefit.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks. I looked back at the previous waterfall that I posted for C&C and we came up with the same idea for a crop. My bad for neglecting that part. I chose the crop I did because I don't really like the stick to the left. I probably should have moved it prior to taking the photo, but that's a further lesson learned.

Here is a second crop, following Mark's advice:



Here is the full-frame original, in case anyone else wants to present an alternate crop:



Tim

 

[kmorgan]

What stick?



Kevin

 

[Grumpy]

My favorite in the batch so far is the full-frame version, stick and all. Maybe a sliver could come off the right and top of the image, but to me, that one is the best framed of the lot.

I do think the horizon needs a touch of leveling – it seems to run slightly uphill from left up to the right.

The highlighted cascade, which forms the center of interest in this photo, is blown out. Less exposure should preserve more detail in the water. It also might change the overall mood of the scene a bit.

The stick on the left is not objectionable, in my view. It is a natural part of the scene. It is what we see on brooks like this one. As usual, I do object to excessive “Photoshopping” of images to remove such things -- it transforms them from authentic photographs to created images of the imagination and they should be labeled as such.

G.

 

[kmorgan]

My favorite in the batch so far is the full-frame version, stick and all. Maybe a sliver could come off the right and top of the image, but to me, that one is the best framed of the lot.

The stick on the left is not objectionable, in my view. It is a natural part of the scene. It is what we see on brooks like this one. As usual, I do object to excessive “Photoshopping” of images to remove such things -- it transforms them from authentic photographs to created images of the imagination and they should be labeled as such.

G.

So removing the stick before taking the picture is natural, removing it after is cheating?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

My thought process was to:

Try and get the water in motion - I think I did OK on that. The major flaw is that it is a bit burnt in the middle. I played with several exposures, and some are less burned, but blurrier

I purposely framed it in the center, with the idea that I could crop from all 4 sides as necessary.

This trail was the greenest of the 15 4Ks, so far, and I wanted to capture the green.

I appreciate the comments on this photo, and all the others, because as non-photographer, I have lots to learn.

Tim

 

[Grumpy]

So removing the stick before taking the picture is natural, removing it after is cheating?

You can be snide about this if you wish. In my profession as a photojournalist, manipulation of the scene by adding or removing objects -- before or after -- is regarded as unethical. I subscribe to that ethic and standard, and abide by it.

G.

 

[kmorgan]

You can be snide about this if you wish. In my profession as a photojournalist, manipulation of the scene by adding or removing objects -- before or after -- is regarded as unethical. I subscribe to that ethic and standard, and abide by it.

G.

Actually I was going for sarcastic.

 

[Grumpy]

bikehikeskifish posted above that he shot his photo with several things clearly in mind:

Try and get the water in motion - I think I did OK on that. The major flaw is that it is a bit burnt in the middle. I played with several exposures, and some are less burned, but blurrier.

If the amount of “blur” looks about right to you, then the lesson for the future is to use that same shutter speed to photograph similar brooks and rills. Switch the camera to shutter priority exposure mode, dial in the “right” speed and let her rip, shooting at various f/stops to get the exposure nailed down, without the blocked up highlights.

If f/stop also is deemed critical (for depth-of-field), then start playing with ISO settings to get the right balance between shutter speed and lens opening and exposure.

Learn and remember the rule of reciprocity (I always think of it as the half-double rule):

The rule is based on the principle that it always takes the same amount of total light energy hitting the film (or electronic sensor) to make a “proper” exposure at any given ISO. This is achieved by balancing the f/stop (size of lens opening) and shutter speed (duration of exposure).

I used to tell students to visualize this as filling a water glass. ISO represents the size of the glass (low ISO is a larger glass that takes more water to be filled; higher ISO is a small glass). Having selected a glass, you can open the tap wide (large f/stop) for a short amount of time (fast shutter speed); or, you can open the tap a little (small f/stop) and let it run for a longer mount of time (slow shutter speed) to fill up.

Now …

Every full f/stop change in lens opening either halves or doubles the amount of light (energy) that strikes the film or sensor. Full f/stops are 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22. F/2.8 lets in exactly twice as much light as does f/4, which lets in twice as much as f/5.6, etc.

Likewise, you can achieve an f/stop change in exposure by holding aperture constant and halving or doubling the shutter speed (from 1/125 to 1/250 sec for halving, or 1/60 to 1/30 sec for doubling, e.g.).

Then, if you hold shutter speed and f/stop constant, you will “overexpose” by one f/stop if you double the ISO, or “underexpose” by one f/stop by cutting ISO value in half.

The capacity to change ISO setting from one shot to the next is a huge advantage brought to us by digital cameras. It was impractical to do with rollfilm cameras without employing multiple film magazines or camera bodies. Sheet film camera users enjoyed more flexibility in this respect.

End of lecture.

I purposely framed it in the center, with the idea that I could crop from all 4 sides as necessary.

This was a good decision, and you did not do it to excess. No further comment necessary.

This trail was the greenest of the 15 4Ks, so far, and I wanted to capture the green.

You surely did that!

I was impressed by your having hand-held the camera at ¼ sec shutter speed. Excellent sharpness achieved, given the circumstances. You definitely are doing something right there, too!

All-in-all it seems to me that you largely accomplished what you set out to do. That's the definition of success. Of course, in achieving that success you also managed to raise the bar for yourself. That's not a bad thing, by a long shot.

G.

 

[w7xman]

1/4 Second!

In many of my recent stream shots, I've been aiming for 1/4 to 1/2 second exposures, as it seems, to me, to have the ideal balance of motion and texture. AND...

Simple math in the field, and the information in Grumpy's post will usually allow you to arrive at this speed in the field!

I think this shot is very nice as presented, and do like the downstream crop as well. Nice lush greens throughout!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks again to everyone for the feedback, and encouragement. Given that Tecumseh is not inherently photogenic at the top, I spent my time looking for photo ops in the woods.

There is also this shot, which was done on automatic, and the flash fired, which made the flower wash out a bit, but I like the end composition and crop. I had two things in mind:

1. It is an example of nature recycling
2. It looks like whatever animal was living in the hole in the tree planted flowers around their "yard" to pretty up the neighborhood

I have not spent any time on adjusting the levels, rather I am focusing on composition first and foremost.



Tim

 

[Grumpy]

Your flash did somewhat overpower the scene, blocking up the flower a bit, and robbing the tree trunk of some texture. If your camera allows, dial in less exposure using the “+/-“ feature and see if that cuts back on the flash’s influence a bit. I’d start at -1 f/stop and work up or down on the exposures from there.

A separate flash unit that can be connected to the camera by a synch cord and thus held off-camera provides even greater control over character of the light. That’s a whole ‘nuther world of paraphernalia and complications, but worth considering if you plan to do a lot of this kind of picture.

I like your composition and whimisical idea about the crritter's garden. Good captioning can add considerably to our appreciation of a given picture.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

There is also this shot, which was done on automatic, and the flash fired,

I always leave my flash set to off (not auto) to prevent it from going off when I don't expect it. I turn it on manually if I want it.

Doug

 

[nartreb]

When shooting pale flowers in the woods, it's almost guaranteed that the flash will reflect too strongly off the petals in the foreground. You can try exposure compensation, but I usually find this is insufficient. What often works for me is to stick the fingers of my left hand up (ie, a few inches in front of the flash since I'm holding the lens in my left hand), shielding the flower while letting some light bounce around to brighten the scene. Pro photographers use an angled sheet of transclucent white plastic mounted in front of the flash, but I've yet to find one of those lying on the trail when I needed one

 

[DougPaul]

When shooting pale flowers in the woods, it's almost guaranteed that the flash will reflect too strongly off the petals in the foreground. You can try exposure compensation, but I usually find this is insufficient. What often works for me is to stick the fingers of my left hand up (ie, a few inches in front of the flash since I'm holding the lens in my left hand), shielding the flower while letting some light bounce around to brighten the scene. Pro photographers use an angled sheet of transclucent white plastic mounted in front of the flash, but I've yet to find one of those lying on the trail when I needed one

FWIW, the Canon XTi allows independent exposure compensation for both flash and ambient light.

Your trick has the risk of casting a visible shadow, but presumably the flower will sit still for several tries, if necessary.

Diffusing the light from a flash is also a good idea, but is hard to do with in-camera flashes.

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

... What often works for me is to stick the fingers of my left hand up (ie, a few inches in front of the flash since I'm holding the lens in my left hand), shielding the flower while letting some light bounce around to brighten the scene. Pro photographers use an angled sheet of transclucent white plastic mounted in front of the flash, but I've yet to find one of those lying on the trail when I needed one

The "fingers trick" is a genuine oldie, but it really does work to diffuse the light. Don't worry too much about shadows if you hold your fingers fairly close to the flash. Digital systems allow you to check for that and make corrections, anyway. Thanks for tossing this idea into the discussion!

G.