Gallery: LandscapePosted September 2, 201797 views7 comments
Hocking Hills, Ohio, from a few years ago..
Nikon D80; .5 sec; f/22; ISO 100; 24mm
I couldn't decide if I should crop out the rocks out of the foreground.
Comments and suggestions are very welcome!
Comments
7 comments
Comment posted by Skip Layman on September 2, 2017 at 4:04 PM
Don't crop out the rock! This is a nice shot of Cedar Falls as it. You handled the tough light well.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 558 Posts, 1704 Comments
Comment posted by Don Young on September 2, 2017 at 4:22 PM
Thanks, Skip!
Registered on April 23, 2015, 56 Posts, 224 Comments
Comment posted by Preston Birdwell on September 2, 2017 at 6:00 PM
This is a real nice little scene, Don. The waterfall looks very nice, and I like how you balanced the composition with the vegetation on both sides. Definitely keep the rocks. They a nice anchor to the image. Nicely done!
--P
Registered on November 1, 2003, 471 Posts, 5188 Comments
Comment posted by Lon Overacker on September 2, 2017 at 8:42 PM
Don,
I like this quite a lot. Its got a dream, Orton kinda look and feel to it. I also like that the composition is a little out of the box with the cascade off to the side, but framed nicely nicely on all sides. I too wouldn't crop the rocks - although If I had a wish it would be for that bottom rock to be completely included. But I'm guessing there's a reason why it was framed/cropped as is. But those two at the bottom as well as the pool of water are important to the scene, so I wouldn't crop.
The only small nit I have is the water in the top 1/3 of the falls. Looks like the white is clipped. If there are other exposures or via some nifty cloning methods I'd try to get some detail in that part of the falls. Otherwise, I think your processing, colors, etc. all look great.
Thanks for sharing!
Lon
Registered on November 24, 2006, 521 Posts, 19147 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Schrayer on September 3, 2017 at 6:52 PM
I like the balance between the waterfall and the cave on the left. For the foreground rocks I would recommend cropping, but only because the lower rock is cut off. On a technical note, I noticed that you used f/22. In a scene such as this something in the f/11 to f/16 range should be sufficient. You are generally going to lose sharpness when you stop down to f/22.
Registered on May 28, 2004, 114 Posts, 2890 Comments
Comment posted by gary phillips on September 3, 2017 at 7:34 PM
I like the rocks, Don. Like Lon, I wish the bottom rock wasn't cut off. It's an interesting comp, a bit out of the box, and for that reason I like it.
Registered on October 24, 2013, 185 Posts, 4136 Comments
Comment posted by Craig Moreau on September 5, 2017 at 3:20 PM
Don, this is very nice. I agree with most in that I wish the lowest rock wasn't cut off, but I don't think cropping is the answer. Those rocks do a lot to anchor the frame and keep my eye from wandering right out of the bottom of the frame. I also agree with Lon regarding the blown out white. If you could tone that down or clone some water texture in there, that would really add to this.
Registered on April 21, 2015, 64 Posts, 584 Comments
Comments
7 comments--P
I like this quite a lot. Its got a dream, Orton kinda look and feel to it. I also like that the composition is a little out of the box with the cascade off to the side, but framed nicely nicely on all sides. I too wouldn't crop the rocks - although If I had a wish it would be for that bottom rock to be completely included. But I'm guessing there's a reason why it was framed/cropped as is. But those two at the bottom as well as the pool of water are important to the scene, so I wouldn't crop.
The only small nit I have is the water in the top 1/3 of the falls. Looks like the white is clipped. If there are other exposures or via some nifty cloning methods I'd try to get some detail in that part of the falls. Otherwise, I think your processing, colors, etc. all look great.
Thanks for sharing!
Lon