Shelving Rock Falls_Fall

Wayne,

Beautiful image, nice concept and perfect execution. With respect to the leaves, they don't look too "orderly" but they of course are absent from the upper area which some may pick up on

Thanks Luke. I appreciate the warning about the apparent lack of leaves further from the camera (I did not notice that), as well as the compliments. In fact, the area with the most leaves is way back by the falls, but they are too far away to notice. The one area with comparatively fewer leaves is the mid-ground, which is farthest from the overhanging trees that dropped the leaves you see in the foreground (I only added two of the red ones, which I picked up just out of view). If that turns out to be an issue, I guess it's a no-win situation, where I would either have to add a bushel of leaves to the mid-ground (they only fall there with stronger winds), or remove them from the foreground, where they always fall. (Not about to do that much work, especially on these slippery rocks!)

This reminds me of a scene I shot when a front was moving in, making an opening on the horizon that let the sunrise shine a spotlight on a large cliff that was below thick clouds. I thought it looked spectacular, but because the opening in the clouds was on the horizon hidden behind the mountains, several NPN members remarked that the bright cliff did not look natural under the cloudy sky. Not sure if they thought I imported the cliff from another shot on a sunny day, or what! In the Photoshop age, to some people, things like that sunrise spotlight or these leaves falling only under trees, look as suspicious as Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon. I'd like to hear what others have to say about that.

I can see why you added the leaves to the scene. They really are a difference maker. Those warm tones make the fg sing. I especially like the pale maple in the llc (just kidding).

I don't think the absence of more leaves looks suspicious. You could be under a tree and there are no other trees along the waterfall. Perhaps the leaf that's balanced on the rock is a bit suspicious because only newly fallen leaves look like that. Most flatten out against the rock. I really admire your effort climbing around those slippery rocks placing them strategically.

The composition works well - 3 wedges - fg rocks, bg waterfall, far bg trees. You could darken the far tree section just a tad which should make the greens richer. The water has good definition.

Your leaf placement looks natural. Sure, some might notice they are absent in the back, but I might almost assume the breeze congregated the leaves at the base of the waterfall where they are more sheltered from wind. Anyhow, I am enjoying this image quite a bit, to say the least, Perhaps the background appears a bit over sharpened though?

This is a touchy subject and art is in the eye of the beholder
There seem too many in foreground compared to up stream but great image.

Nice image, well composed and of course the leaves add alot. I don't know if everybody does this but I certainly have and don't especially feel guilty, after all I didn't bring the leaves with me from home But what I do typically, is make certain that the near leaves have a context of leaves through the scene. If you're going to go with it, go all the way!

Gorgeous Wayne. Great elements and perfect shutter speed. Doesn't look too contrived at all.

An interesting discussion.... I've never added any elements to a natural scene, at least that I can remember, although I frequently will move things that are a distraction to a composition out of the frame, as long as they are dead things like twigs, dry grass or a funky rock. I might pull back a live branch temporarily, too. It's like in PP; i.e., cloning out something is fair game and something I frequently do but inserting something in PP is a bridge too far for me. One exception might be borrowing some non-blown out whitewater to fill a blown out section. I didn't make conscious decisions on these criteria, it's just someplace I ended up. However, I don't mind if others "enhance" a shot but it is surprisingly difficult to pull it off and keep it natural looking. My two cents...

That being said I have no issues with this particular image and it's a great comp. The only nit I have is that one large yellow leaf that is on edge, seemingly teetering on the rock, doesn't fit with the rest of the leaves that seem plastered to the rock surfaces they are on. Out of curiosity Wayne... was that a placed leaf or is that where it was sitting naturally?

Wayne, the leaves do look a bit "out of place", BUT:
- I might not have noticed or focused so much on that if you had not told
and
- It is a beautiful picture regardless.

This amount of "manipulation" is certainly a lot less than a photoshop composite of several images!!! I have no problem with that either, although I do not do it. I do not own/subscribe to photoshop and have never used, nothing against it, just not my thing.....

It's a good looking scene, Wayne, and the colorful leaves add a lot to that. There are enough leaves scattered through the mid-ground that the foreground looks natural (maybe with the exception of the teetering yellow leaf not being plastered down, but I expect much of that feeling comes from knowing that you've manipulated the scene.) Scene manipulation is clearly something that all nature photographers should think carefully about, but it's also a situation where we'll all drawn our own line in the dirt. Given that we regularly see "night images" that combine a twilight shot and a night shot so that a nice foreground can be shown dimly against a starry sky, it's hard for me to see criticizing your moving a few leaves around. It's also seems to me that much of the anti-manipulation sentiment comes from the "origin myth" that a photograph represents reality, which has never been true.

Thanks everyone. I am enjoying the discussion.
DAVE: Yes, that "teetering" yellow leaf on the left is one that I moved. It was originally on the right side, partly covering another leaf, and it looked sort of out of place there, too -- partly because it looked "fresh" and partly because it was on the edge of the frame. There were two similar leaves on the right side that I moved, and I sort of tossed them onto the left side to see where they would land. One fell off and was washed away, but this one stuck, so I left it there.

I think my philosophy is similar to yours. I normally avoid rearranging leaves because I am not good at it, but in this case I knew that the ones that were there did not look good, so I figured I could not do much worse than the breeze did. Like you, I don't "import" elements, but I don't have a problem with moving something that is nearby -- usually just out of frame, but in this case, the red leaves were behind and to the right of my tripod, so I rationalized that a tiny change in the breeze could easily have put them in the scene, especially since there were two or three other red maple leaves already visible in the frame, but less noticeable.

I am not sure if in my mind it's an ethical issue any more than one of avoiding the creation of a scene that could not exist without my intervention. For instance, if there were no red maple leaves already on the rocks where I shot this, adding them would not make sense, any more than putting a dead tropical butterfly in the scene. I mention importing the non-native butterfly because that's something that another photographer has had success selling, since his aim is creating a pretty scene that people will purchase, while my aim is closer to documenting what exists in nature. I figure that if the leaves are already there, I can move them a little without creating a scene that could not exist in nature. Another example of creating an "impossible" scene is blending a daytime photograph with a night photograph so you can see the a blue or red sky and details of a twilight-lit landscape at the same time as thousands bright stars. Nobody will ever see that in nature (without hallucinogenic chemicals), but it's a practice that many viewers accept just because it looks beautiful. Time distortions such as star trails and extremely motion-blurred water are other examples. They don't depict reality, but they are camera tricks that are interesting to see. None of those practices would be considered "illegitimate" by most people unless they claim to be something they are not. The very act of "recording" or attempting to reproduce a natural scene distorts the view of nature by the artificiality of the medium, whether it is some kind of pigment applied to a surface (painting) or a chemical or electronic depiction of a scene (film or a sensor) through some kind of lens that introduces artifacts created by its focal length and depth of field that is in focus. As a result, no depiction is totally accurate; each lies somewhere on a continuum between fantasy and memory, but none of them depict reality with absolute accuracy.

P.S. While I was typing, Alberto and Mark added some good points. Alberto mentioned that focus-blending in post-production (using Photoshop in this case) was another form of manipulation. How true! In this case, I used it to attempt to realistically reproduce what I saw (after moving the leave ;^) ) because the camera added the articial element of depth of field, which may be something that our eyes see, but it's something that our brains "correct," which speaks to Mark's point. Photoshop (and indeed all of our photography tools) are just attempt to do what our eyes and brains do.

Hi, just to clarify, I was not thinking about focus stacking, although that would also come under what i was talking about, and I have thought on more than one occasion about getting started with that (so far in the "not yet" camp). What I had in mind were precisely the sort of images that Wayne and Mark brought up: absolutely gorgeous starry skies with perfectly illuminated landscapes. Again, I have nothing against that and I do enjoy them, but I will probably never get into that myself. And I will definitely never get into the game of adding spurious elements, such as dudes standing on rock piles (also added) pointing at the horizon, etc. My point is that, next to all of these things (which, I repeat, I do not see as "mortal sins" even if they are not my style), moving a few leaves is a "non-offense" in my book. I believe that what is great about photography (and other art forms) there is no "right" or "wrong" - simply different styles.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents to the conversation. And that is that heavy postprocessing is encouraged at this website and rewarded. Most of the images that are awarded here are heavily processed. I see a lot of landscapes that have little original vision that are rewarded because they are flawless in their construction. There seems to be less to none recognition for good seeing or creative compositions compared to the 'performance' (to use Ansel Adams term) of the image taken. I suspect that this is the approach with many websites that provide critiquing.

I suppose everyone has his own value of what is the most important aspect of photography. For me it's seeing. The best and most important aspect takes place before the shutter is released. Big Freeman Patterson fan here. The rest of it is just 'polishing'. Yes, you can improve an image by polishing but I contend that the subject is the main player and should be recognized as such.

I like this, Wayne. The leaves do add a nice touch of color and warmth. You might consider burning down the lighter rock on the upper left just a bit.

Now, I've been known to move a leaf or two at the time of the exposure, but I will not add elements after the fact during post-processing. I may remove bit of distracting stuff at the time of exposure and/or clone out bits of debris. In my post processing, whether it's a digital image or a scan from 4x5, I attempt to adjust color and tone that supports my visualization at the time the exposure was made, with the goal of having my work look 'natural'.

--P

I like your comp in this image. The foreground leaves add some nice color and there is a nice visual flow with the cascades that lead my eye back to the waterfall. Nicely done.

A beautifully put together scene Wayne and great vision to add a few leaves and focus stack for the depth in this. The leaves add a lot to this by adding some pop to the fore ground. I might darken the rocks top left a bit to bring more focus on the upper falls but that's just me. Beautifully done image.

Very nice !

Beautiful scene, expertly rendered, by someone whom I consider to be very ethical. In this instance the leaves add a lot to the composition and they were there. I would add that if you had not pointed this out, we would not be discussing it. My point is, that if the scene looks natural in color and light, what's the problem? I am definitely in the camp of adding what I can in post or on site (or removing) to enhance the image. If you set up an easel, and attempted to render a scene in water colors, would you not include or exclude elements that add drama or detail to the scene. I set out to learn photography to satisfy my creative side and I certainly indulge myself from time to time.

Beautifully composed and executed image. I really love this.