Desert Waterfall

[flashback]

Mark I'm liking #1 more and more. The colors are just striking and the entire scene has a certain mysticism about it.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Mark, I like the shot, but can't help thinking that the water is moving too fast.
Was it really coming down that fast or is it all a result of shutter speed?

[Downrigger]

can't help thinking that the water is moving too fast.

Hi Alan - I don't think it's moving "too" fast. It's undoubtedly complying with the physics of the situation and I think reveals itself appropriately for this shutter speed (1/30).

The speed of the water falling is complex - uniformly and simply governed in part by the acceleration of gravity (32 ft per second-squared), but complexly determined by air resistance which increases with velocity, whether the volume of water is falling as a consolidated mass (which can reach and exceed the terminal velocity for droplets very quickly), or has broken into droplets whose rate of fall is determined by droplet size and distance from the center of the falling column (air resistance greater on the outside). As the falling stream of water accelerates in breaks into droplets with roughly a terminal velocity of 30 ft/sec on the outside of the falling column - faster on the inside. There are even some electrostatic fields in a waterfall which add to the complexity of determining droplet speed.

But the available free fall in this image is only about five feet - not enough time to break fully into droplets and for those to reach terminal velocity, but only perhaps half of that. So at my exposure of 1/30, the droplets that have separated in the streams of falling water are shown moving around 5/30 feet, or roughly a few inches. The water still falling as consolidated streams is blurred too.

The result, for a small falls at 1/30 is a textured look that looks familiar to what is seen with the naked eye. Faster exposures can freeze the falling water, which not quite what one sees gazing unless one tracks the falling water in which case one can sort of "freeze" it. Slower speeds smooth and soften the water into silky forms - which can be pleasing but have no correspondence to actual visual experience. It's all a matter of choice - or circumstances limiting exposure time.

Other more experienced landscapers may have thoughts on rules of thumb for shutter speed and moving water effects.

[FrankMi]

Hi Mark, this is a really great image!

The unique S-curve of this waterfall make this a really special scene to capture. It has a lot of elements and therefore a lot of possibilities for how you can present the result.

Perhaps the hardest part is determining how you want the elements to be emphasized or deemphasized to accomplish a specific goal. The rub is that you have to have that specific goal in mind before you can effectively nudge the result in that direction.

There have been a number of suggestions for this provided already so I won't muddy the beautiful waters with more suggestions but rather point out that there are a number of quite valid personal preferences to choose from. Because you were there and this is your capture, I am very interested to see what you decide is the best way to present this scene and hopefully you will be able to articulate your reasons. Being able to do so will help you to define your style.

[Downrigger]

Thank you Frank, Alan, Nandakumar. Frank, some of what you mention is elaborated in the preceding discussions in this thread.

I agree, before starting with PP it is valuable to try to decide what you want to "say" rather that trying to discover that by experimenting with the sliders. (Though serendipity happens too)

The overbalancing of brightness on the rock and light beyond the falls relative to the falls seems to some to de-emphasize the falls. Since I want this image to show something that feels hidden, green, shaded and moist relative to a surrounding bright open rocky environment, I kept the brightness down for the falls and pool and brought it up a tad for the environment outside the immediate environs of the water and shade. My initially posted version is my "keeper" despite my subsequently better balanced version posted further on.

[FrankMi]

My initially posted version is my "keeper" despite my subsequently better balanced version posted further on.

Excellent! I would say that you have achieved your goals. Well done!

[NorthernFocus]

...I agree, before starting with PP it is valuable to try to decide what you want to "say" rather that trying to discover that by experimenting with the sliders...

....Since I want this image to show something that feels hidden, green, shaded and moist relative to a surrounding bright open rocky environment...

This thread is a good example of the value of soliciting feedback etc. Mark, your summary here indicates that you clearly had a plan yet you went through the process of trying the suggestions that were made and ultimately decided that they did not support your vision. But that decision was made after trial, not immediately(aka defensively). Anyone truly seeking input in order to improve the craft/art should do so. It is difficult for most of us to remain humble and objective enough to go through a process like that.

[Downrigger]

Right, Dan, I agree: I have had many favorite images that I thought “finished” that were improved importantly through the C&C at CiC.

I very much needed the help I received with this one to 1. Make sure I didn’t miss a change I wanted for the image, and 2. Better understand how I came to the choices I made.

The extraordinary thing about our image files is that they are amenable to a virtually astronomical number of “solutions” in crop/composition, color and light. As we become engaged in working with them we (at least I) can lose the ability to see important alternatives that are either subtly or majorly transformative.

[joebranko]

Very unusual waterfall beautifully captured!8