out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

I took this series a couple weeks ago at Anna Ruby Falls in Helen GA. I worked mainly with a longer exposure time to allow more detail and color spectrum into the photos.
Everything was shot with Canon 6D MarkII in Manual Mode with a Canon 24-105mm lens on tripod. Filter used was just a Newwer polorized Filter. The area was mostly shaded. ISO was set to 100
Please be honest on your opinion and the reason why you feel that way. Last photo was just a throw in of myself and my date for the weekend.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

hoola

Greenish tint to these fotos .

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

very, very nice.I especially like 5 and 6.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

#2 - I can't find anything in focus even though your aperture info says f/20. Do you recall what you focused on there?

#6 has a similar issue (at f/22).

The compositions and subjects are really lovely. The whiter water of the falls is more appealing to me than the gray/green of #2 and #5. #5 does seem to be sharper and more detailed in the surrounding rocks and foliage than #2 or #6.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Thank You unfortantly i am color blind and not able to see the green tint especially with everything in ther forest being a shade of green. Most likely i am guessing its caused by the polorized filter on the lens. Its not a very expensive one infact it came in a set with the lense at time of purchase.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This is a nice set with a lot of potential. The ambient light has definitely caused a color cast throughout the set.
--Bob

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

Bushkill Falls ?

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Thank You after going back and looking at the photos on the camera The focus point on 2 and 6 was actually on the falling water itself. I already know that isnt the best place to be.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Because most of the reflected light is, well, green.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Thank You BOB

User ID

The whole series appears to be a technical experiment in shutter speeds for moving water. No idea why a PL is applied. The speed looks ok for the water, in that motion is evident but the water is mostly not rendered as fluffy mist or “cotton candy” as tends to happen with overly long exposures. The first two seem to have different shutter speeds and the first one looks more natural ... the second one borders on “fluffy”. The water looks good in most of the rest of the series.

Definitely agreeing with the remark about the green color cast. It’s well within correctable range. If you have manually set WB for daylight or shade, those settings do not anticipate light filtered by a leafy green canopy. Auto WB should sense it and correct it, but even if you used auto WB and it failed, it’s now up to you to correct it.

To my eyes, the overall tonal range is a bit murky, but appears to have plenty of data for reworking it in post. Tonal rendering is acoarst subjective.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

If you could have gotten higher and shot down on the first two it would have improved them. Perhaps just 5 feet up or so?

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I thought the same, with #1 included. Looks like a tripod was needed but not used. As close as the foreground rock is, I would have used a smaller aperture and a wider setting on the lens (used 54mm)

Silverrails

Nice set, a Couple seem to have been a bit grainy, a few seemed to need more light, the motion in the Water(s) looked well accomplished. If you enjoy Landscape Photography, check out "Mark Denny" on UTube, many excellent videos.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Your first photo was shutter priority and ended up with an ISO of 12,800 Regarding the polarizing filter, did you try any shots without? As User ID suggests, shady scenes are unlikely to benefit. Here is more information:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm

I'm glad you mentioned having learned to not attempt focus on the moving water. If you're going to use apertures like f/20, perhaps try controlled tests to get used to how much depth of field you can expect at specific focal lengths and where the best spot is to focus. There are several online charts for depth of field. While you're familiarizing yourself with this technical aspect, maybe also compare f/11 or f/16 to f/20. People often report the "sweet spot" of a lens as being wider than f/20 or f/22.

You have expensive equipment; make the most of it! (edit - I just now looked closely at the next to last image. IMO you got it together and got it right )