Waterfall and seagull in the snow

[dwaugh]

I went out again, as it was snowing (as you can see from the photos). I didnt take long on each shot, as it did not take long for snow to build up on my camera, sometimes making it hard for me to focus since it was so fogged up.
First shot is from the day before, the rest are from today.
I may also add that on the two in the snow, the lighting conditions were not great, so I did the best I could.

[Mr Yuck]

Very well done. The first one is beautiful, giving a feeling of serenity, or something like that

The second one contrasts greatly with the first, the streaking snow and the fogginess gives a chilly feeling.

The third is great, makes me very glad I'm not a seagull, though it doesnt fit as well with the other two.

1 and 2 shouldnt be displayed seperately, they're a great contrast of the daily differences in the PacNW

[dwaugh]

The seagull doesnt go with the rest, I just post them together because I took the photo on the same day. What my plan actually is for the waterfall is to take a photo of it in every season, and put them all together in a series. I only have spring left before the series is finished.
Thanks for the comment. And I also feel it for the ducks and gulls. There were ducks swinmming around in a group with snow on their backs.

I was slipping around a bit while riding, but only once did I really go down, half a block away from my house on the way home. I was going fast and slipped sideways, layed my bike flat on the icy road, put my foot down, and was able to pull it back up without actually falling.

[Frog]

I like the contrast between the first two. Not exactly the same compostion but both work.
The seagull just makes me cold. Excuse me while i go turn up the heat.

[scott-devon]

Those waterfall shots are wonderful. The seagull is a neat shot too. Very impressive stuff.

[dwaugh]

Every time I go back to the waterfall for a new shot I try to get it close to being the same, but every time I am bound to be in a slightly different position. Thanks again for the comments. I hope that seagull can warm up in the next few days.

[Ronnoco]

The shutterspeeds on the first two were too slow and therefore not creating the right effect.
The problem with the last one is that the seagull blends in too well with everything else in the photo. The last one with the seagull has great potential but it needs postprocessing to give it a little more impact. The goal is to get the flying snow in the background and separate the gull better from the background as well using contrast and colour control.

Ronnoco

[Mr Yuck]

Agreed with Ronnoco, when possible, I like to shoot waterfall shots at fast and slow shutter speeds, though I tend to like the slow shots more, with snowy streaks and the smooth water, being able to see individual water droplets is awesome. Never hurts to take extra shots.

The effect, IMO is "right" either way.

I think the gull shot would look great if it stands out a little more, but as it is, it's awesome too. Extra shots are good though. I hear you guys in Bellingham got a good load of snow pretty early this year.

[Ronnoco]

Agreed with Ronnoco, when possible, I like to shoot waterfall shots at fast and slow shutter speeds, though I tend to like the slow shots more, with snowy streaks and the smooth water, being able to see individual water droplets is awesome. .

Nothing wrong with slow shutterspeeds for waterfalls, BUT too slow and you end up with a large mass of washed-out detail. With multiple shots you would pick the one that gives you the effect you want, but still retains sufficient detail in the white areas.

Ronnoco

BTW, Dwaugh, when shooting in snow, you have to make sure that your automatic exposure doesn't turn your white snow into an off-white/grey, as in the case of your gull shot.

[dwaugh]

Actually the gull wasnt an automatic shutter speed decision. I think I set it at 80, even though the light would be too low, as the lowest speed that I can do freehand with my 135mm lens. I could have had better color, but it would have been blurred most likely. For the waterfall, it's in the trees a bit and the clouds were heavy both days, so the light was low and I had to use a long shutter. On the first day, though, I did take the photo at all speeds possible (including fast shutter shots).

Also, how would I edit the seagull to stand out from the snow more? I already added quite a bit of contrast.

Also, Ronnoco, as you mentioned in your first post... what exactly is the "right effect"? I may look through my others I took of the first one and show you one that had a bit faster of shutter speed, and see how it compares. I'm still a beginner, so I'm still learning.

[Ronnoco]

Actually the gull wasnt an automatic shutter speed decision. I think I set it at 80, even though the light would be too low, as the lowest speed that I can do freehand with my 135mm lens. I could have had better color, but it would have been blurred most likely. For the waterfall, it's in the trees a bit and the clouds were heavy both days, so the light was low and I had to use a long shutter. On the first day, though, I did take the photo at all speeds possible (including fast shutter shots).

Also, how would I edit the seagull to stand out from the snow more? I already added quite a bit of contrast.

Also, Ronnoco, as you mentioned in your first post... what exactly is the "right effect"? I may look through my others I took of the first one and show you one that had a bit faster of shutter speed, and see how it compares. I'm still a beginner, so I'm still learning.

Well, I can demonstrate what can be done with the sea gull in postprocessing, if you have no objection.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Dave - Seems like most everyone likes the shots, so I guess I dont feel too bad about going against the majority. Somehow they don't do much for me at all. The first two's composition isn't appealing to me, and the second is just too washed out. I find the right side branch distracting. If there was a boat up there in the water, now that might be nice (but let someone else but me try it!) Likewise the gull on contrast, but even if it wasnt washed out I dont feel that the angle or composition is very attactive. The bird is centered in the frame , and the surroundings dont do anything to lend interest. Sorry, but it gives you a reason to go do a great reshoot!

GB

[dwaugh]

Yeah Ronnoco, go ahead and edit if you want.

I also agree with GB1 in that the shot is alright, but it really doesnt have anything going on, etc. I have another bird shot that I will post up with my next batch as soon as I get around to unloading them from my camera.

The waterfall, at this time of year is a plain shot, but my overall goal is to see it in all seasons and how different it looks in each season. The autumn shot was popular.

Dont feel bad about going against the crowd, as I am still learning, and any critiques help. :idea:

[Ronnoco]

Well, the quality of the edit would have been better if I were working from a 16 bit original and not the compressed 8 bit version, but nevertheless the idea comes through as to how postprocessing can add contrast and separate the gull from the background.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Also, Ronnoco, as you mentioned in your first post... what exactly is the "right effect"? I may look through my others I took of the first one and show you one that had a bit faster of shutter speed, and see how it compares. I'm still a beginner, so I'm still learning.

There are two approaches to waterfalls. One is a fast shutterspeed to stop the water and provide lots of detail: droplets, waves, etc. The second is to use a slow shutterspeed to give the falls a light, delicate feel emphasizing the direction and the "curtain of water".

You were trying for the second approach but it doesn't work here. A higher waterfall with less water going over, works better for the second approach. Because you have a low waterfall with lots of water, the result of a slow shutterspeed is just a mass of burned out white...as in total loss of detail in a large percentage of your photo.

The answer is a faster shutterspeed to keep detail in the white water while still trying to emphasize its motion. Some experimentation with shutterspeeds would be necessary to get that effect.

BTW, For shooting without a tripod and a slow shutterspeed, I use whatever is around like a tree, bridge support, rock, or even balance the lens on my knees in a sitting position.

Ronnoco

[dwaugh]

That looks great after editing... now I must ask, what exactly did you do? (also, what program?). I use Paint Shop Pro 5, and I want to see if I can get the same result (all part of the learning experience). When I edit, the main controls that I use are saturation, contrast and gamma correction. Did you use the freehand selection tool or something to capture only the foreground? As soon as I know, I'll try it out and post up my result.

As for shooting slower speed with no tripod, I usually do exactly what you said you do, except in this case I was in the clear with no trees, and the seagull was on top of a piling so I had to be standing up. I was just in a situation where I had to do my freehand best.

[Ronnoco]

That looks great after editing... now I must ask, what exactly did you do? (also, what program?). I use Paint Shop Pro 5, and I want to see if I can get the same result (all part of the learning experience). When I edit, the main controls that I use are saturation, contrast and gamma correction. Did you use the freehand selection tool or something to capture only the foreground? As soon as I know, I'll try it out and post up my result.:

I used Paint Shop Pro X (10) freehand selection and find edges I went around the bird and its snow perch and then chose INVERT which captures what you have not gone around....the background. With the background selected I chose Blur: Motion right to left to give the background an interesting look. Out of invert with the bird and perch selected I went to color and chose CLARIFY. I then went to contrast and added just a little. The perch was still grey rather than white so I chose white and did a quick paint job of the perch.

I steered clear of saturation when I found that amplifying the colour also amplifies the colour noise. I also learned that there were other methods of getting the colour you want without using saturation. With contrast, you have to be very careful about retaining detail in both highlight and shadow areas as well as keeping the tonal range which adds quality to your colour as well.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Good job, Ronnoco... the bird pic edit definitely looks a lot better.

[SmartWombat]

Well, the quality of the edit would have been better if I were working from a 16 bit original and not the compressed 8 bit version, but nevertheless the idea comes through as to how postprocessing can add contrast and separate the gull from the background.

I am surprised there was that much information to be recovered !
Sure there are some colour artefacts because you're only working with 8 bits, but it's amazing to me how you got so much out of that flat original.

[Ronnoco]

I am surprised there was that much information to be recovered !
Sure there are some colour artefacts because you're only working with 8 bits, but it's amazing to me how you got so much out of that flat original.

Thanks, PAul, GB, Waugh. I can't yet do, as much as I would like to, in the area of postprocessing, but I am learning more approaches and getting there.

Ronnoco

[readingr]

Ron,

I am in awe of the edit you carried out - outstanding - how about creating some tutorials for post processing dunces like me?

Roger

[GB1]

Ron,

I am in awe of the edit you carried out - outstanding - how about creating some tutorials for post processing dunces like me?

Roger

I agree -- this PP job is one of the best I've seen, considering how the bird out was just lost in the snowstorm.

I need to improve my PP skills one of these days... But I guess I'm more interested in being the field guy.

GB