With Spring hitting our region I ventured out last week and revisited a site I have ben meaning to get back to.
The goal of my visit was loosely to capture the flow of the Spring snowmelt, or more simply just to get out of the house and enjoy nature.
This discussion takes two parts;
1) I have never been happy with my waterfall shots and feel I may be simply missing something.
What do viewers feel about the traditional shots - is there anything that sticks out and can be improved upon?
2) The ICM shots are attempts to highlight the turbulent flow of brook water as it tumbles over a steep descent.
Although I have found specular highlights a distraction in the past I feel in this series they add a dynamic energy to the images.
What do others feel about these images? Do you prefer the more abstract, or lean toward the more literal?
For me, 2 stand out: no 3 and 4. No 3 gives the best environmental vibes, while no 4 is a detail shot that is not too abstract to my taste.
however, on 2nd thought, the more abstract shots also have a certain appeal .. I can see them hanging together as a set
Composition-wise, the 3rd cut off just above the top of the water and the 4th are the best.
As for the effects, I love the "light drawing" part of the photos. Due to internet and jpeg, my edit of the last photo is very low resolution.
Traditional Shots - the water is beautifully shot; but I think for me, the rest of the shot is too harsh in that there's an unsettled contrast between the softness of the water and the sharpness of the rest of the photo. I'm not sure how to change that - there's always post processing, but I also wonder if the time of the day/lighting would make a difference in-camera.
ICM - I do like these shots. You're right that specular highlights assist in the dynamic energy of the flow. I don't think you would get the turbulent feel without them. All of the ICM images are lovely - lots going on, smoothly, without feeling busy at all.