Some waterfalls from north GA

jkcothron

Waterfalls are one of my favorite subjects, here are some of the local falls:

1 Minnehaha Falls

2 Bad Branch Falls

3 Hemlock Falls

4 Falls on Big Panther Creek

5 Horsetrough Falls (really low water level)

stella82

these are great! I like #1 and #4 - it's crazy how thick and white the water appears`?

[Deleted User]

I agree. In some way the pics are great. Nothing wrong with the technique . But to be frank: I do not like that kind of water pics. Are they really better than a natural look?

puzzledpaul

@Jørgen_Bjerring said:
// ...Are they really better than a natural look?

Think there's a place for both / all depends on what 'better' means, as well as what the 'tog is after, imo.
If an 'accurate' representation of the scene is required, that's one thing, if the 'tog has something else in mind - colours / textures / shapes etc and happens to be using what's in front of him / her as a basic canvas to be 'adjusted' in line with their vision ... that's another matter.

Although I'm not really a 'landscape' sort of bod, I've recently come across these - which, in small doses - I quite like ... I suspect you might have a different opinion though?

pp

roaddog52

Some really nice captures. Great color and good compositions. I shoot a lot of water, and use several techniques. I think it depends on the mood, or situation, the photographer is trying to capture or convey.

Phil

[Deleted User]

@puzzledpaul said:

...

Although I'm not really a 'landscape' sort of bod, I've recently come across these - which, in small doses - I quite like ... I suspect you might have a different opinion though?

Your suspicion is not quit correct. My aversion is probably closely connected to running water in waterfalls and streams. In that kind of pics the blurred look from my point of view becomes an unnatural and strange element, because the look only hits the water.

jkcothron

@Jørgen_Bjerring said:
I agree. In some way the pics are great. Nothing wrong with the technique . But to be frank: I do not like that kind of water pics. Are they really better than a natural look?

To be fair, over the years I have migrated to "less" of the smooth water look. These days I try to maintain a little more texture in the water. Having said that, I do think the movement needs to be conveyed. I've shot thousands of images of waterfalls doing everything from stopping the water through turning it into a unrecognizable mush. The answer is somewhere in between (for me). As others have suggested it also depends on mood, and sometimes on the amount of water flow. The last "low water" image of Horsetrough for example. If you stop the motion in that image, the water very nearly disappears there is so little of it. In that particular image however, I was concentrating more on the rock layers and structure than I was the waterfall itself as a point of interest.

jkcothron

@stella82 said:
these are great! I like #1 and #4 - it's crazy how thick and white the water appears`?

@roaddog52 said:
Some really nice captures. Great color and good compositions. I shoot a lot of water, and use several techniques. I think it depends on the mood, or situation, the photographer is trying to capture or convey.

Phil

Thanks!

black mamba

I, too, find the artificially blurred appearance of flowing water to be unnatural. I appreciate, however, that artistic taste vary all over the place and there's room for each of our predilections. I shoot a fair amount of waterfall shots and I find your series here to be very well executed. I feel the color " pop " in these shots to be a bit on the strong side....at least in my experience in working in similar environments. Still, very good work.

Tom

[Deleted User]

@jkcothron said:
To be fair, over the years I have migrated to "less" of the smooth water look. These days I try to maintain a little more texture in the water. Having said that, I do think the movement needs to be conveyed. I've shot thousands of images of waterfalls doing everything from stopping the water through turning it into a unrecognizable mush. The answer is somewhere in between (for me). As others have suggested it also depends on mood, and sometimes on the amount of water flow. The last "low water" image of Horsetrough for example. If you stop the motion in that image, the water very nearly disappears there is so little of it. In that particular image however, I was concentrating more on the rock layers and structure than I was the waterfall itself as a point of interest.

As always: Taste is a hard matter to discuss, but it is useful to do it. I understand your reasons, but to me the result is still pics with a profound contrast between an "unnatural" look in natural surroundings. I find the pic of Horsetrough Falls great until the water ends up in a milky look. Who is the polluter?

jkcothron

@black mamba said:
I, too, find the artificially blurred appearance of flowing water to be unnatural. I appreciate, however, that artistic taste vary all over the place and there's room for each of our predilections. I shoot a fair amount of waterfall shots and I find your series here to be very well executed. I feel the color " pop " in these shots to be a bit on the strong side....at least in my experience in working in similar environments. Still, very good work.

Tom

Thank you for the comment!

No doubt there is a little too much "pop" in some of them, in particular the Hemlock Falls shot. Most of these are relatively old shots, and I use to struggle mightily with finding a happy medium on white balance, and color rendering. In that shot for instance, the water is very blue, yet the leaves at the top of the shot in particular are really yellow. Of course the reason is shooting a shaded area with sunlight hitting certain areas of the scene. Making the water more neutral yielded an even brighter and more yellow foliage. Post processing is an art in itself, and for me the biggest learning curve since switching to digital in 2008. That part of my style is continually evolving. I don't play with saturation very often, but I do give most shots a little vibrance.

Of course, I use to shoot Velvia exclusively, and never realized how saturated that film is until I started working in digital format and started looking back at some transparencies.

jkcothron

@Jørgen_Bjerring said:

@jkcothron said:
To be fair, over the years I have migrated to "less" of the smooth water look. These days I try to maintain a little more texture in the water. Having said that, I do think the movement needs to be conveyed. I've shot thousands of images of waterfalls doing everything from stopping the water through turning it into a unrecognizable mush. The answer is somewhere in between (for me). As others have suggested it also depends on mood, and sometimes on the amount of water flow. The last "low water" image of Horsetrough for example. If you stop the motion in that image, the water very nearly disappears there is so little of it. In that particular image however, I was concentrating more on the rock layers and structure than I was the waterfall itself as a point of interest.

As always: Taste is a hard matter to discuss, but it is useful to do it. I understand your reasons, but to me the result is still pics with a profound contrast between an "unnatural" look in natural surroundings. I find the pic of Horsetrough Falls great until the water ends up in a milky look. Who is the polluter?

Thank you, and absolutely it is useful to discuss taste. Taste varies wildy and I always enjoy hearing others perceptions of my work. While I may not always agree, it does provide a different perspective and usually is worth doing some reflecting on. My style has changed a lot over the years, and I would be naive to think it won't continue to in some ways.

black mamba

@jkcothron said:

@black mamba said:
I, too, find the artificially blurred appearance of flowing water to be unnatural. I appreciate, however, that artistic taste vary all over the place and there's room for each of our predilections. I shoot a fair amount of waterfall shots and I find your series here to be very well executed. I feel the color " pop " in these shots to be a bit on the strong side....at least in my experience in working in similar environments. Still, very good work.

Tom

Thank you for the comment!

No doubt there is a little too much "pop" in some of them, in particular the Hemlock Falls shot. Most of these are relatively old shots, and I use to struggle mightily with finding a happy medium on white balance, and color rendering. In that shot for instance, the water is very blue, yet the leaves at the top of the shot in particular are really yellow. Of course the reason is shooting a shaded area with sunlight hitting certain areas of the scene. Making the water more neutral yielded an even brighter and more yellow foliage. Post processing is an art in itself, and for me the biggest learning curve since switching to digital in 2008. That part of my style is continually evolving. I don't play with saturation very often, but I do give most shots a little vibrance.

Of course, I use to shoot Velvia exclusively, and never realized how saturated that film is until I started working in digital format and started looking back at some transparencies.

I have to say, a little boost in vibrancy can be a savior on occasion. Like you, I relied on Velvia since its introduction. I stayed with film until the whole digital ball game and all of its benefits became too dominant to ignore.

Keep up the good work.

Tom

jerryr

excellent images - especially #4!

Stumblebum

Fine work! Like #1 and #5 most. Cheers!

kdog

Nice series! I like them all. Good job on the exposures. I agree with what you said about finding a happy medium of movement in the water to simulate what your eye sees. Water isn't static and while we're somewhat conditioned to seeing it frozen with a fast shutter, there's nothing "natural" about that. Better to have some natural smoothness from a slow (but not too slow) shutter.

jkcothron

@Stumblebum said:
Fine work! Like #1 and #5 most. Cheers!

Thank you!

@kdog said:
Nice series! I like them all. Good job on the exposures. I agree with what you said about finding a happy medium of movement in the water to simulate what your eye sees. Water isn't static and while we're somewhat conditioned to seeing it frozen with a fast shutter, there's nothing "natural" about that. Better to have some natural smoothness from a slow (but not too slow) shutter.

I tend to agree with you on the "unnatural" look of frozen water. It can be interesting at times but isn't my personal preference. I've dropped shutter speeds substantially over the years, I have a recent shot that I noticed was at 1/5 second, which is pretty short for this type shot. Even then I think it could have been shortened more. Every fall and every time is different, much of it depends on current flow. Thanks for the comment!

Cornflake

I like these very much, particularly the fourth and fifth ones. There is no "accurate" way to take a still photo of moving water. The very smooth look appeals to me, but I know that some people don't care for it.

David_S85

Beautiful set of photos! Even with what looks like low light levels, you were able to bring out the personality of these falls.

ritewinger

All great, no. 4 is my favorite....