More from the Gorge

Wiren

Got to Eagle Creek before daylight, hiked to Punchbowl and arrived just a few minutes after first light. I never liked my previous 1 shot from there and wanted to re-do it. Water is low at this time it seems.

1.

2.

3. This is Metlako Falls (50mm prime lens)


4. Ponytail Falls


5. Ponytail Falls again

Peter

Wiren wrote:

Got to Eagle Creek before daylight, hiked to Punchbowl and arrived just a few minutes after first light. I never liked my previous 1 shot from there and wanted to re-do it. Water is low at this time it seems.

Very nice shots Wiren. I really like the first one . . . very peaceful . . . Great job!

Peter

Wiren

Thanks

Peter wrote:

Very nice shots Wiren. I really like the first one . . . very peaceful . . . Great job!

Peter

Thanks Peter, I was worried that the water is so ever slightly blown, not sure if it will go in the portfolio or not, the water in #2 isn't blown out like in #1.

Glad you like it though, that is encouraging, I apprecate your looking.

Howitzer

awesome shots, ive been meaning to head up there for pics.. must fight the laziness!

only thing you might try on the 1st one is to crop out the blurred leaves on the upper right. they are very beautiful though. dont spread the word about oregon though.. people will wanna move here.....

brvheart

Nice ones!! What were the settings used on these? Also did you use an ND filter?

Photopaddler

Nice series, I like the first of the Punch Bowl falls shots because of the rock face and seeing the bottom of the waterfall unobstructed. Also I like the perspective of the first of the Poney Tail falls shots, I wish I had thought to try for that shot when I was out there... I must get back there one of these days.

Wiren

brvheart wrote:

Nice ones!! What were the settings used on these? Also did you use an ND filter?

The first two were ISO 100, WB 5600, center weighted metering, 60 second exposure, ND filter was used. The long exposure does blow the water and soften it to the point of losing any detail, but imo this gives it more of a dreamy look (which I like) and using the grad kept the water from blowing so much it sears through the photo.

The 3rd & 4th shots was much the same except that the exposure was 20s.

The last I used about 1/8th...? I forget, but I wanted some amount of detail in the water, so I used a much shorter shutter speed on that one.

Thanks for looking.

Wiren

Photopaddler wrote:

Nice series, I like the first of the Punch Bowl falls shots because of the rock face and seeing the bottom of the waterfall unobstructed. Also I like the perspective of the first of the Poney Tail falls shots, I wish I had thought to try for that shot when I was out there... I must get back there one of these days.

I almost didn't think about that angle until I saw some dogs that passed me by in a group of hikers that jumped down there and made me realize that getting down there wasn't so much a challenge after all.

chrismoore

The first one is awesome, really well composed. The falls do look a little blown, however. that always seems to happen to me when shooting falls. Overall you did a great job preserving the contrast and color.

Wiren

chrismoore wrote:

The first one is awesome, really well composed. The falls do look a little blown, however. that always seems to happen to me when shooting falls. Overall you did a great job preserving the contrast and color.

Thanks Chris, that first one seems to be a fave with everybody who sees the set. I am going to have to look at my histogram when I get home tonight, I am thinking that in all reality the falls are not blown at all, I seem to recall the histo being what you want, technically. I am wondering (and it is probably a flamable debate in some circles) if the histo shows a well exposed photo, but the water looks blown, could that in fact be a trick of the eye due to the fact that the extended shutter speed has removed all detail from the falling water.......making it look blown when it is not......? What is your take on that theory? I will be sure to double check the histo when I get home and if I can, I will print screen it to the thread if I am right. Anyhow, thanks for looking.

Lee

chrismoore

Wiren wrote:

Thanks Chris, that first one seems to be a fave with everybody who sees the set. I am going to have to look at my histogram when I get home tonight, I am thinking that in all reality the falls are not blown at all, I seem to recall the histo being what you want, technically. I am wondering (and it is probably a flamable debate in some circles) if the histo shows a well exposed photo, but the water looks blown, could that in fact be a trick of the eye due to the fact that the extended shutter speed has removed all detail from the falling water.......making it look blown when it is not......? What is your take on that theory? I will be sure to double check the histo when I get home and if I can, I will print screen it to the thread if I am right. Anyhow, thanks for looking.

Lee

Not sure what program you are using, but the best way in Lightroom, for example, is View-->show clipping. in ACR you can hold the option key while moving the exposure and black sliders and it will show you the blown highlights as well. The histogram can be deceiving, especially if it is only one spot that is blown and the rest of the photo is exposed properly. Here is what I got when I loaded the photo in lightroom. granted, it is a low res version so the full res may in fact not be blown as you say:

Wiren

chrismoore wrote:

Not sure what program you are using, but the best way in Lightroom, for example, is View-->show clipping. in ACR you can hold the option key while moving the exposure and black sliders and it will show you the blown highlights as well. The histogram can be deceiving, especially if it is only one spot that is blown and the rest of the photo is exposed properly. Here is what I got when I loaded the photo in lightroom. granted, it is a low res version so the full res may in fact not be blown as you say:

Thanks Chris, I do use Lightroom 2 exclusively and was planning on playing around with the sliders a bit, not sure if that will help save this one or not, but worth the try as the photo itself is worth saving. I can see that the histo may be deceiving and I am sure your highlight shows where it is just that way. I will see what playing with the levels can do and double check, I am in no way a pro at all the LR features so I appreciate your explanation of what you did so I can reproduce the effect on my program.

Thanks again.

Lee

Wiren

after some checking....
Ok Chris, I went and checked the 'ol histogram on the original. I must say that there looks to be something lost in translation, my original showed very little clipping at all, one small pixel at the top of the falls and one small pixel at the bottom. Wish I could do a print screen to show you, just don't know how the trick you did. Anyway, upon other comments elsewhere, I played with the tone curve sliders and think I improved it a bit...... I also cropped out the blurred leaves. Here is attempt #2

chrismoore

that's why I put that disclaimer in there, because I had a feeling that by just grabbing your shot from the thread and throwing it into lightroom that problems would be created that weren't there and the photographer usually knows best! It just looked a little bright IMO. Blown falls happens to me all the time shooting waterfalls and so I've learned my lesson the hard way and now take separate shots metered for the falls. There are usually multiople stops of difference especially in shaded areas. Anyway, the second attempt looks great, nicely done