Sometimes Less is More (Page 2): I found myself thinking the same. But I couldn't, like you, figure why. My wife was the one who encouraged the crop version. If it gets hung on the...

treadwl Loc: South Florida

JohnD3 wrote:

I prefer the original. Can't fully identify why; but, it just seems more complete.

I found myself thinking the same. But I couldn't, like you, figure why. My wife was the one who encouraged the crop version. If it gets hung on the wall, her version will win I'm sure. :-)

treadwl Loc: South Florida

jaymatt wrote:

I prefer the crop because it puts more focus on the waterfall. In the original version, I believe the foreground competes with the waterfall.

That is the exact reason that I cropped it. Thanks.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

RichardTaylor wrote:

I like the first one better, it is hust a bit more intimate.

I also agree. The crop is a more intimate feeling. However if you want the grandeur----then the long river is the winner.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

Linda From Maine wrote:

The crop is somewhat subtle, but I'm going with jaymatt about competition. The length of the river is nearly same as height of falls in the original, and the crop removes that aspect. A little imbalance helps stress the height of the falls. Excellent exercise, Larry!

For the record this is the second highest falls (215 feet) in the eastern US. Only Niagara is taller. In the end I guess it just comes down to the choice between grandeur or being intimate. What does the photographer want to convey. But I agree---it is an interesting exercise.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

fergmark wrote:

My 2 cents. Definitely crop, but I would back out to include the next rock on the right.

Probably a good point. I think you re right.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

R.G. wrote:

Having some smooth water in the foreground is a good thing, but I'd say you don't need quite as much as you have in the non-cropped version. I would crop it to the point where the large rocks in the river on the left and right of the foreground are coming out of the corners. They'll do a nice job of framing the foreground without being too intrusive.

PS - I find that using portrait orientation can sometimes throw my usually reasonably accurate sense of composition.

I think you are quite right about those large rocks. In retrospect, I think you are right about portrait orientation. I shoot most of my landscapes horizontal, I like the feel if it and I'm more comfortable shooting that way. I recently shot Watkins Glen, it is a very narrow but deep gorge but almost every shot demanded to be vertical. I was uncomfortable the entire time. I wanted the horizontal, but they just did not work. Funny how we get wired that way. Thanks for the thought.

Charles P Loc: Southern Central NY State

treadwl wrote:

I always try to get it right in the camera and com... (show quote)

I like it better without the crop because I like the longer lead into it. That falls is only about a 40 minuet drive from my house, and I've tried to photograph it a few times, but my efforts all look like crap compared to this. A very nice capture indeed! You've given me something to shoot for.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

treadwl wrote:

I always try to get it right in the camera and com... (show quote)

lovely.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

Charles P wrote:

I like it better without the crop because I like the longer lead into it. That falls is only about a 40 minuet drive from my house, and I've tried to photograph it a few times, but my efforts all look like crap compared to this. A very nice capture indeed! You've given me something to shoot for.

Thanks for looking and commenting. This was the only composition that I liked at the falls, everything else just felt wrong. Have you been to Treman State Park and photographed Lucifer Falls. That was a real challenge. I'll post that shot later.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

photophile wrote:

lovely.

Thanks for looking.

Charles P Loc: Southern Central NY State

treadwl wrote:

Thanks for looking and commenting. This was the only composition that I liked at the falls, everything else just felt wrong. Have you been to Treman State Park and photographed Lucifer Falls. That was a real challenge. I'll post that shot later.

I have been there, but have never got a decent shot of that falls either. I look forward to seeing your photo of it.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Man, I love'm both, but if I had to choose then the crop!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Larry, I like both but the second one seems to be the better for me. Perhaps it's living in the desert and not seeing much water flowing anywhere that draws me to the larger expanse of flowing water.
--Bob

treadwl wrote:

I always try to get it right in the camera and com... (show quote)

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

treadwl wrote:

I always try to get it right in the camera and com... (show quote)

I prefer the un-cropped version. I think the extra length and more river provide greater context to story of the picture. I have seen a lot of pictures of waterfalls. I prefer a picture that tells more of a story.

From looking at waterfall pictures by Ansel Adams, I notice that, except when the falls is particularly spectacular, he either provides context for the falls in the bottom third of the shot or by showing the falls in landscape orientation providing context to the side(s) of the water.

bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

Both are beautiful but I give a slight nod to the second one.