adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Here is the last shot (for a while) to which I would appreciate reactions and suggestions. The shot was hard to get, involving climbing down a highway embankment and over a lot of rocks and driftwood. So many photographers say never to put your subject dead center, but given the terrain and the framing effect of the trees on the left and the fall foliage on the right, I was pretty satisfied. I felt that the foreground also would prove interesting. Have I missed the boat? Shot with my D3100 and a Nikkor 18 - 55 lens.

Lewis Fall, Yellowstone NP

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Very hard to answer, no picture!

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

I just attached the picture. For some reason it didn't work the first time.

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

Works for me. Stream flowing from (our) left to right, coming at us, bending to our left as it leaves. Where would the center be??

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

I think it is a very good composition but would prefer to see it as a download.

dennisallard Loc: Southern Maine

No problem having the waterfall in the center. The other elements make the composition work.

tejaswrangler Loc: South Texas

adamsg, nice picture. In regards to suggested rules when some folks say that the subject should not be centered in the picture, I am of the opinion that the rules of 3rds are only a suggested guide line and you should use common sense too. Just my humble opinion. Thanks for sharing. :thumbup: Tejaswrangler :)

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

There are a number of things you could do, much of which post processing would help. This was shot in not the best light and therefore you really are not getting the best shot. However when you are hiking and traveling you shoot what you can when get there. To get better output on this shot you need to expose for the brightest spot which is the water fall. The camera exposed for the over all light for which you must compensate. The water fall is far too bright, it is overexposed and lacks detail. If you shot underexposed, you would have created more shadows but this is where post processing would rescue/improve the image. PP software is excellent in recovering details from shadows.

The sky is lifeless but shooting underexposed would have gotten more detail. You could have used a gradient PP tool to improve just the sky.

The rock in front is cut in half. You should scan all edges of your frame so that nothing is cut. I would re-crop the image and eliminate a portion of the trees on the left and eliminated the rock at the bottom. This would have lowered your horizontal line to the bottom third which is preferred.

You might consider using ND filters to soften the falls and water for an effect that many like. And since this was not shot in the n=best light anything else you could do would improve the image.

Anyway, disagree or not. You wanted some feed back and I provided it. My intentions were for the best and should not be taken personally.

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Mark:

There is merit in your suggestions. The camera was brand new to me at that time, so that may play into it. Here is the shot I was trying to attach - converted from JP2000 to JPEG. It is cropped from what I originally posted, and hopefully somewhat better than the original. The sky had no features - we had a rash of fires in and around the area that made that trip frustrating for any type of landscape work. When I shoot this again, I will definitely underexpose (something I now do as a matter of course - 1/3 stop). How does this strike you?

Lewis Falls - edited

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I like the cropping. Much better. In the previous image the falls were lost among all the other objects. I would stop down even further. When you have so much white in the image from the clouds or waterfall 1/3 is not enough. I don't pay as much attention to the meter as to what I see on the LCD. I have the "blinkies" on and that tells me I have to stop down even further if I want to capture the details. Photoshop easily removes shadows from dark areas provided you shot at the lowest ISO possible. One other thing, the tops of the trees has a bluish/magenta color cast. That can be corrected in Lightroom or Photoshop. Just warming up the picture with temperature sliders in post will also increase the color values throughout the image. Photography is an art as much as a science and it can be really hard when conditions are less than ideal. On the attachment of the pacific ocean I took last Friday, it was a hazy day. The sky was not appealing so I eliminated it from the image entirely. But I really moved the histogram all the way over to the left/dark side to make sure I got all the detail from the foamy white water. And use a polarizer when possible.

( I think I typed too much - sorry)

Also use

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Terrific shot of the Pacific. I grew up in California and am wondering where you took the picture. You made a raft of good suggestions. Now, when I have time I am going to go over the shot with a fine tooth comb and a lot of time on my editing program. Thanks for your input!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Pt. Lobos, Carmel - wonderful place

adamsg Loc: Chubbuck, ID

Been there. It is a lovely place. The whole reserve is a treasure trove of photo opportunities.