I took this photo some days ago, and placed it in my profile. I thought this was a good picture, but it may seem I'm wrong. I have got 3 votes on the photo. 2 voted two stars (need work) and 1 voted tree stars (solid).
I would really like som feedback on what is missing. Need to learn.
What is wrong
Nice composition. My suggestion is to light some of the areas in post processing. Bring out the color and detail of the moss and the rocks. Photo has potential of 3 or 4 rating. There are several good articles on adding light . Just a slight adjustment makes a great difference.
It's just a standard, centered waterfall with a very uninteresting sky. Tell me what makes the photo more unique than other waterfall photos. (Which you should look at in comparison before answering.)
I know the focus is the waterfall but the greenery surrounding it needs more life and punch. I think the shadows could be raised to bring out the trees and the moss like William suggests. Overall (at least on my screen) the whole scene could be brightened up. Agree with Charles about the sky. What time of day was this taken?
The photo is taken in the evening and in shadow. Im going to try brighten it up and se how it works.
Hi Kjell,
I voted on a few I really liked on your profile. If I was to vote on this image, I’d be either a 2 or a 3. I think on its own, while I really like the length of shutter you’ve used to get the water how it is, for me, the rest of the photo is just a little boring. There’s no interest in the sky, and the limited surrounding greenery is so dark it doesn’t add anything. If you take the next picture along in your portfolio, you’ve got more elements of interest there with more details visible in the trees, the sky’s has a bit of colour in it, and you can see more of the environment around it, which for me, made it a much stronger image.
It’s not to say this photo is bad, it’s not. It’s been executed from a technical standpoint very well. I’ve just seen so many long exposures of waterfalls that to get me excited and up to a 4 or a 5 rating, there needs to be something either unique or different about an image that would have me saying “ah I love what’s what they’ve got there.” I didn’t get that on this shot - but did on plenty of the others in your portfolio.
Thanks for taking time to answer to this tread. I will bear your advise in mind for my next waterfall. To not just manage the technical aspect, but altso add the little extra.
Hi Kjell, I'll own being one of the people who gave it a 2. While technically its nicely executed I didn't feel like it hit the bar for something you'd want to put into a portfolio e.g. earning a 3. Following are some observations.
While I'm sure that your camera was level and if necessary you corrected in post, visually the angle of the shot leaves my brain trying to tell me it's tilted a bit. And, that may just be me and not affecting anyone else. Also from a composition point of view I find the image to be a bit "crushed." A somewhat greater proportion of sky / a little more open detail in the upper left vs. so much cropped off straight line might let the image breathe a bit more.
I agree with the others that the sky is not particularly interesting. That being said, I'm not a proponent of compositing. If I wanted to create an image that fit what my mind's eye says it should look like I'd have taken up painting......
Overall the image is pretty low key, quite leaning towards monochromatic. As William noted, lightening up some areas in post processing to bring out the detail would make a big difference. That being said, some people take it too far and create images that are simply outside the realm of possibility.
I hope that I've given you some useful things to think about.
Thanks for your reply. I will pick up the raw file again, and give it a new go to se if i can make a better version.
Totally agree about compositing and painring, Gary!
Agree with others. I'd say the image is a little under exposed and just doesn't pop. There is no interest in the sky and possibly some foreground interest would raise the bar. Shutter speed is good and captured the water nicely.
I shot a lot of waterfall images in Snowdonia recently during heavy downpours where the falls were torrential. I thought the waterfalls may be interesting enough in themselves as subject matter, and they weren't; none of the images really worked. Every day is a school day when it comes to photography.
While I agree with some of the earlier comments, Kjell, I wouldn't dwell too much on the ratings per se. A common problem is people seemingly giving 2- or even 1-star ratings across whole portfolios. I've seen a number of excellent photographers express frustration about this happening to their portfolios. It's FS' version ot trolling, something we're otherwise refreshingly free from here.
The "flat" light, allowing no modelling of the forms, gives the image a two-dimensional quality. I've played with the tonal values as mentioned by others, and while this is not an exhaustive attempt, I couldn't really think what else might "lift" it enough.
It's a pretty scene, and would have been nice to behold, but sometimes that just doesn't translate into a great photo. It depends on what Nature offers. Sometimes, it's just viewing pleasure. I think a number of your images - the Dover cliffs, the Telegrafhytta image, and some of your cormorant images are very good indeed. They breathe more, whereas this one is somehow stifled by comparison. The light is the main issue you're up against, I suspect. The image is well composed, in my view; this is one of your strengths.
Good on you for laying your work open for such scrutiny!
Thank you for your response. I think you are right that sometimes a nice scenery don’t always translate into a good photo. In this case the light is to flat, and a perhaps stiff and boring composition.
I tried the same adjustment you did, but it still is to flat.
I have to try visit this spot once more in better lighting and see how different light may give a better result.
I wanted this photo to be good, so I overlooked its faults.
Thanks to you and for the other responses.
I had a play around with it too Chris, I wanted to remove the uninteresting sky to see if it looked more balanced, I don't think it made a great deal of difference.
Don't want to hijack or bypass Kjell here, Joe - it's his post, after all! - but I do like your effort here. Best on the page. Maybe that sky competes with the white water too much.
Thanks for your effort to look at the picture.
For the first, Im not a big fan of altering a picture by removing or adding elements in the picture. I have done that myself, but only minor elements like a telephone line, a branch in the corner of the picture and so forth. So your suggestion to add trees instead of sky would for me be out of the question.
I do like the sky over the waterfall better than the suggested trees. It clarifies the top of the waterfall. Defines the top in a better way than the trees.
On second thoughts...
I hadn't noticed that Joe had cloned in trees, rather than simply cropping (note to self: don't post comments after midnight when brain AWOL).
I'm with you, Kjell - I'd never do that in an image I'd print or post, but it is interesting as an exercise. "Best on page" somewhat qualified now!
Me neither Kjell, not something I'd usually do. I use content aware fill very occasionally to remove distractions, but I don't go in for heavily manipulating images. It was really just an exercise to show that the sky is probably best excluded when there's no interest there. Thanks for taking so kindly to all the comments; as someone has said earlier, it takes a lot to put for work out there for critique.
You're forgiven, then, Joe. ;-)
This is from another angle, and with a post prosessing making the image brighter, but its still flat. Better visit the spot in better light condition.
Kjell,
I appreciate you taking to everyone's suggestions so kindly and working to improve this image. Looking forward to this in another light!
That's a great improvement to the overall composition.
This angle gives the composition more energy, with a less centred composition and that vigorous diagonal. I can just feel that water pounding down and spraying off. But the light again poses the same limitations. Next time, Kjell!
Maybe you can show us, if luck is with you.
Photography is an ongoing learning prosess, so it’s all about ceep trying.
Spot on Kjell, you're extremely lucky to get the image you want on the first visit. I'll often revisit 3-4 times to get the right conditions and an image I'm pleased with.