a nice little waterfall

[Snuffy2]

I know you keep personal atacks out of here but some times I feel like I get that, I know it doesn't happen here but some times I take it that way. Thinking maybe too many high hopes and then..the C&C.. If I'm n a p*** poor mood, I might take it personal, so the best thing is dont come back in here and see the comments presented until I am ready to face them..LOL

 

[BobH]

Snuffy, if you see a personal attack, let me know. So far folks have been pretty good about that. For example, CB said "I think you would have achieved deeper colors and less reflections with a polarizer." That comment is specific to the photo rather than to the photographer.

He could have said something like "You should know you need a polarizer for landscapes. You call yourself a photographer?" but he didn't. By staying specific to an image, and keeping the comments about the photo, you avoid most of the problems.

As I mentioned, critiques are tough, but keep in mind that criticism of a photo you took does not equate to a critique of you.

Let's imagine I went out tonight and tried to play basketball. (Whoever wrote "White men can't jump!" pretty much had me in mind...) The critique of my performance, or lack thereof, would be pretty harsh. Does that make me a bad person? No, it only means I'm not good at basketball. With practice that could change.

Photography is no different. While some folks pick it up faster than others, everyone has to work at it.

 

[Scottpix]

I like Rocky's better.

First, it appears Rocky used a polarizer and Bob did not. I could be wrong, but that's what it looked like. As a result, Rocky's greens are richer and less reflective, and the surface of the pool is less reflective, giving that a richer tone too. This is also carried more subtly to the rocks and branches surrounding the falls as well.

Second, Rocky used a somewhat longer exposure. Both are long enough exposures to blur the water, but Rocky's is more misty. I don't know what the exact exposures were, but Rocky's appears to be longer shutter speed, and I like the effect better.

Third, on my calibrated monitor, Rocky's tones are slightly warmer. This is a personal taste, but I prefer slightly warm over cool tones, particularly in nature photos.

I do appreciate that neither of you were too heavy handed on your saturation. You possibly boosted it a little, but not too much. One of my pet peeves lately is that so much photography is way over-saturated to nearly comic levels. Drives me bonkers.

Last, I looked at the photo linked by climbbike. I have to say that in that version, I really like the rocks in the foreground. It is a really nice way to lead into the photo from the bottom edge.

Can anyone tell me where, exactly, this falls is? I've been to Rainier a couple of times, but don't recall seeing this one. It appears to be a perfect size for an experiment I want to try.

Thanks,

Scott.

 

[BobH]

Thanks for the comments, you're right in line with what I was thinking.

It's just north of the Stevens Canyon entrance to the park.

http://www.waterfallsnorthwest.com/nws/waterfall.php?st=&num=999

 

[ront]

Looks like I am a bit late on this one but Excellent instructional thread!!

Ron

 

[dschaecher]

Snuffy, if you see a personal attack, let me know. So far folks have been pretty good about that. For example, CB said "I think you would have achieved deeper colors and less reflections with a polarizer." That comment is specific to the photo rather than to the photographer.

He could have said something like "You should know you need a polarizer for landscapes. You call yourself a photographer?" but he didn't. By staying specific to an image, and keeping the comments about the photo, you avoid most of the problems.

As I mentioned, critiques are tough, but keep in mind that criticism of a photo you took does not equate to a critique of you.

Let's imagine I went out tonight and tried to play basketball. (Whoever wrote "White men can't jump!" pretty much had me in mind...) The critique of my performance, or lack thereof, would be pretty harsh. Does that make me a bad person? No, it only means I'm not good at basketball. With practice that could change.

Photography is no different. While some folks pick it up faster than others, everyone has to work at it.

To add to what Bob said, I never take critiques personally as long as they are, as Bob said, a critique on the photo. If it's towards me, then I tend to get a little excited. I like to welcome critiques on my photos. I've only been shooting digital photos for a couple years and I've got a lot to learn. By having those with more experience give me tips, I can learn and improve and perhaps even help others. I'm always striving to get better and by gleaning information from others I'm able to do so.

 

[squirl033]

i've found that a critique is easier to take when it's informative, and whenever i offer one - which isn't often, i admit - i always try to suggest ways to improve the result, whether it be using a different shutter speed or aperture, or perhaps a different physical viewpoint or time of day. i'm no expert, but if i can share what i do know with someone and help them improve their photos, i like to do so.

 

[BobH]

Rocky, you're totally correct. Fortunately, folks around here are pretty good about that.

As an example: "I like Rocky's photo better than yours Bob.", while totally accurate, doesn't tell me anything. "He used a polarizer and I like his shot better because of it." is helpful and informative.