Another Before and After :)

RhinotheruntRhinotherunt Registered Users Posts: 363 Major grins
edited September 19, 2009 in People
Same scenario... soaked front element from mist of the water fall...

After:
3930499454_d67366d898_o.jpg

Before:
3930499560_b677154397_o.jpg
Ryan McGill

My Gear

Comments

  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    Rhinotherunt wrote:
    Same scenario... soaked front element from mist of the water fall...
    After:
    Before:
    Another good one.
    I know it's not always possible due to the terrain features, but using long tele may sometimes help avoiding the soaking. Not always of course, in Yosemite or Niagara you'll get soaked no matter what, but definitely it can help with the less powerful falls.
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • rhondavidrhondavid Registered Users Posts: 433 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    Very nice shot of pretty girl and pretty waterfall. Nice job of "cleaning" it up as well.
    David

    D40
    18 - 55 kit lens
    55- 200 VR kit lens
    Lots of desires
  • RhinotheruntRhinotherunt Registered Users Posts: 363 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    rhondavid wrote:
    Very nice shot of pretty girl and pretty waterfall. Nice job of "cleaning" it up as well.
    Thanks Rhondavid! Took some time, but I believe it was worth it!
    Ryan McGill

    My Gear
  • RhinotheruntRhinotherunt Registered Users Posts: 363 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    Nikolai wrote:
    Another good one.
    I know it's not always possible due to the terrain features, but using long tele may sometimes help avoiding the soaking. Not always of course, in Yosemite or Niagara you'll get soaked no matter what, but definitely it can help with the less powerful falls.
    I agree 100%! The longest tele I have is a 70-200. 200 is not to far with FF. The Water Fall was 3-4 stories high with a large pool at the bottom. Many thanks for the kind words!
    Ryan McGill

    My Gear
  • Tim KamppinenTim Kamppinen Registered Users Posts: 816 Major grins
    edited September 18, 2009
    Another possible solution, which may or may not have worked depending on the actual layout of the location, would be to shoot at 200 and move the model and yourself further away from the waterfall, so she's not right under it. If you framed it right you might be able to get the same effect. Of course, that wouldn't work for the other shot you posted, but for this one it might have done the trick.

    Anyway, these are great!
    http://www.timkphotography.com
    http://blog.timkphotography.com
  • RhinotheruntRhinotherunt Registered Users Posts: 363 Major grins
    edited September 19, 2009
    Tim Kamppinen wrote:
    Another possible solution, which may or may not have worked depending on the actual layout of the location, would be to shoot at 200 and move the model and yourself further away from the waterfall, so she's not right under it. If you framed it right you might be able to get the same effect. Of course, that wouldn't work for the other shot you posted, but for this one it might have done the trick.

    Anyway, these are great!
    True... and thanks for the comments!!! :)
    Ryan McGill

    My Gear
Sign In or Register to comment.