View Full Version : Waterfall

06-03-2009, 10:49 PM
I think I posted this waterfall before. I was there today and took some shots just before dark, and a few different angles. The low light made a much better picture. I was hopeing to be useing my new camera but I called the guy and told him I was on my way, and he said he got a higher offer >:( so I told him to shove it up his..you get the idea ;D






This dude was watching the show with me and catching bugs flying by

This is one of the reasons why I want a better camera. The shot I was looking for was the water droplets in the background and him slurping a bug up. Could have made for a cool shot. It would have been easy with a higher quality camera..He was so busy eating he didn't notice me until I was 2 feet away from him. He ate at least 30 bugs when I was watching him during the time I was there. and he didn't move until I touched him with my finger...lmao




06-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Wow! Awesome shots. It looks like you have a new buddy ;D

06-04-2009, 01:28 AM
Nice shots! *Now you're showing me the camera is only one factor in getting eye catching quality results.

Think I said before that when I see something really NICE it's hard to keep my editing mitts off it. *This is a darker more dramatic rendition of my favorite in your group. *Edit goal was to center attention on the wispy falls while maintaining all the interesting details you've captured in the shot. *Hope you don't mind me messing with it.

Sorry, to hear of the let down on the D200. *$600 ought to buy a heck of a camera. *Though I relate to your torture of specification overload I suggest hang in there, and you'll come up with a even better deal.

OH, did that chart help you calibrate your monitor?

06-04-2009, 02:07 AM
Yak, you can do whatever you like with my shots. I always look foreword to see how much better you can make them look. And once again you have done it. Wow what a difference, that looks awesome. I took 150 shots and didn't edit any of them besides the resize. I quickly chose the ones I posted but I think there are some better ones buried in there. I am going to go through them later. If you don't mind me asking, what specifically did you do on the edit to improve that shot so much? As far as the camera goes. I was really pissed at first but I know another will come my way. I guess it wasn't meant to be. I'm in no hurry but today I was really wishing I had it for that frog shot I was talking about. Lucky that spot is only about 10 miles from my house and I bet he is there every night doing the same thing. I never would have noticed it. One of the things I have read recently regaurding photography is to be patient and thoroughly observe your surroundings. When I saw him slurping up fly’s while looking towards the waterfall and seeing the droplets of water bounce around him I knew that would of been an awesome shot. Just gives me more reason to go back there...ahh bummer ;) Just so happens that's its next to one of my favorite fishing holes up here ::) the same thing happened to me a couple days ago. There is one spot on the river where trout will rise consistently whenever a hatch occurs during the evening hours. And I'm talking aggressive blows from wild bows that launch up to six feet out of the air every 10 minutes or so. I went yesterday to try and grab a shot of them airborne and it was hopeless with my camera, it's just too slow. So hopefully in the near future I will be posting that shot. Until then I will be back on the boards searching for an upgrade. BTW I recieved my Consumer Reports Mag today. Front cover is "Cool cameras" The best point and shoot & SLRs of 77 we tested (some under $150). It was an interesting read if you haven't read it yet.


06-04-2009, 09:13 AM
Pretty sweet what you can do Yak ;)
From this;
To this;
Dramatic for sure :D

06-04-2009, 09:55 AM
Nice retouch! The rocks and foliage look much more lush. A little washed out in the original. But I seem to like the water in the original better than the touchup. Yak - did you crank up the contrast? It might be helpful to FFG and others (like me!) to know what sort of changes you made...

FFG, looks like it was a long exposure by hand. Have you tried 'bracketing' your shots?

06-04-2009, 01:50 PM
Learning simple principles will let you recognize more what you will end up with and what you adjust to make a photograph appear better 'before' post processing (PP).

Images that are made up almost exclusively of darker tones,l like the frog pictures, will require longer exposures and if left to the camera will also end up with wider open apertures which limit depth of filed at a time when you may not desire that.

The highest percentage of my shots are in aperture priority because depth of field is not something you can recover much in PP. And if I have a shot which I want to shoot at f/8, 11 or even 22, It may require shutter speeds impractical for handheld shots.

So what can I do, well I can raise the ISO.. 200 is my norm, but I go to 800 no problem. 1600 on Olympus dslr's is problematic with a significant amount of noise introduced.

I can use exposure compensation, which helps and my camera body has inbody Image Stabilization and that helps alot, but much I want to get a 'sharp' shot. So we need tripods, or some other choice. There are lots of ways, 'bean bags', mini tripods (if you camera isn't too big) or just setting the camera on something stable.

Make sure your subject is framed to your approval, and use the timer so you are touching the camera when it goes off. Voila, much sharper shot.

06-04-2009, 03:13 PM
FFG, looks like it was a long exposure by hand. *Have you tried 'bracketing' your shots?

All the photos yesterday were shot on a tri-pod and mini 5" tri-pod (frog shots). I tried Bracketing AP,S, and Manual Settings experimenting with different Shutter Speeds,Aperture and ISO. The camera I am useing is acient (Kodak DX7630) so I am very limited in its setting.ISO100-400, AP range F2.8-F4.8, Max shutter 1/1400 sec,EC -2 to +2EV in 1/3EV steps. After looking at the photos today there are some much better shots than my original but none as good as Yaks. After looking at over 150 shots of the same scen my eyes start to loose it. here is the info on the shot I posted. I'm guessing but I think Yak raised the comp, highlighted, sharpened, Removed DCN and changed the Hue/Sat a little but we won't know until we here from Yak. Here is the details on the shot I posted.


Cheif thanks for that info, that will be very helful in the future.

06-04-2009, 04:53 PM
I was throwing that to as general info. This is what happens before the processing. In designing the magazine and all of the other things we've used at The Fish Sniffer for 20+ years, I've gone through all the different processes as they have evolved. In our case the vast majority of it has been pictures of people holding fish, so for a long time I've tried to make that look as good as I can.

But as my interest in photography as a hobby has risen, the idea of post processing is second nature, what you do once the the data is in the computer.

That being said, what you do with the camera is still the foundation of the image.

I much prefer shooting raw now, and feel it gives me the best image to process. Yes it's a little more work, but I've been doing it so long whether in the darkroom making halftones, or working in Photoshop or Aperture (as I do now). I'vegot so much to learn, and wish I had this interest wake up 30 years ago instead of 5.

06-04-2009, 06:08 PM
Chief, you mean to tell me you're still in the dark room dodging? ;D

I'm sure there are still some folks out there holding on to old school. Hats off to you. Great way to learn and appreciate the art but man, why?

I've got way more to learn compared to what I know. One day when the kids are grown and dispensible income perhaps creeps back up a hair, I'll rediscover the hobby when it has morphed - again. "You used to use a digital camera??" ;D :D ;D

06-04-2009, 06:35 PM
Mickey - Thanks for the before/after comparison. The flash animation program I usually use for it is on the fritz and IncrediShow's support has yet to get back to help resolve the problem.

FFG - It's impossible for me to explain all the many small steps I took in modifying your image. I get in a "artsy" mind mode and jump from one thing to another trying to make improvements as I go. In general your original is low in contrast so I took steps to increase that starting first on a selective basis. The shrub on the left seemed most distracting so I began by toning it down using a soft edge burn brush to darken first the highlights (brightest tones) and then the shadows to enhance leaf separation and overall darken the foliage. Photoshop has a selective color adjustment feature I like to use a LOT. I used it to darken greens overall and then messed around using it's sliders for other colors too.

I've followed step by step instructions in books I've bought to learn more advanced post processing techniques. They work, but unless the technique proves something special and I decide to use it repeatedly I forget 'em. Then, I have to figure out under what pile of junk I've hidden the gall-dang book.

My best advice is to do just what you have been ... JUMP IN and experiment. Over time you'll figure out procedures that produce good results and ones that don't. As you take time to perform your PPing artistic efforts you'll start "seeing" your images at new depths and with new feelings of perception. Your newly educated "eye" will also help next time you're out in the field framing and setting exposure for another shot.

Chief - Thanks for your explanation of how dark subjects and auto exposure affect aperture size and depth of field. It's something I'd never thought of before. Your tip on using the self-timer to aid in getting a steadier shot is good along with all your other insight for getting better images. I'm SO GLAD you've joined in to share your wealth of experience!

Photography can be part time fun and occasional memory saver but it can also provide a life time pursuit of learning and improvement. Getting a ultimate "killer" shot is sort of like seeking a monster brown. Illusive but you're driven to keep trying.

06-04-2009, 08:47 PM
Chief, you mean to tell me you're still in the dark room dodging? *;D

I'm sure there are still some folks out there holding on to old school. *Hats off to you. *Great way to learn and appreciate the art but man, why?

Oh lord no, the darkroom reference was from the years spent in the darkroom with the stat camera trying to make all those pictures you guys sent in from super great quality 8x10's to 3x3 polaroids taken from 100 yards away to get some sign in the picture. I was never into photography in those days to be in a darkroom with developers etc.

I've been working in photoshop for quite a while, but that was when I was able to work with scans, did so well into digital's infancy due to the fact that it was still not as good of quality as a decently scanned print from a good film shot.

I am digital and will be digital (made the leap around 2002), and I have an epson 4800 and I also want to master that. It makes beautiful prints, and then sometimes it makes prints that make me go *:-/

06-04-2009, 09:06 PM
Very nice retouch Yak ! It makes it look 3 demsional like I could smell the fawna and sweet smell of the water mist !