Breaking line.

phass · Jul 29, 2017

Thank you for your thoughts.
Cheers

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 29, 2017

How did you get that close to the water???

Ian Grant · Jul 29, 2017

Old-N-Feeble said:
How did you get that close to the water???

He waded out there

Telephoto lens look at the compression of perspective. . . . . . . . . .

Ian

Sirius Glass · Jul 29, 2017

Old-N-Feeble said:
How did you get that close to the water???

He leaned over the wall to take the photo.

Vaughn · Jul 29, 2017

I would cut off the lower half of the image..and double check the level of your horizon (which is probably level, but just does not look like it is).

But then that would make my image instead of yours...so take that with a grain of salt. (I tilted the image a quarter degree counter-clokwise).

Sirius Glass · Jul 29, 2017

It is level. The land and trees are higher than the water line.

Ian Grant · Jul 29, 2017

Vaughn said:
. . . . . . . . double check the level of your horizon (which is probably level, but just does not look like it is).

That's an interesting point, often the horizon level is an illusion and can appear awkwardly un-level when in fact it's totally correct. I've seen this a few times even when I've shot with a spirit level.

Ian

Vaughn · Jul 29, 2017

I come across it often enough -- especially on my last trip out to Death Valley both with its long sloping landforms and with closer-up images of rock forms. Even in the redwoods I find that "level" and what looks right are not always t he same. I don't have a problem with going off-level to improve the composition.

In the above composition, the water should be a little higher on the right than the left (water flows down hill, of course). The 1/4 degree counter clock-wise tweak I gave the image does not seem to have tilted the building on the horizon awkwardly.

The reason for the major crop is that I feel that half the frame has been given to dark water that does not give us more information nor encourages my eye to travel within the image. It does give a sense of the shape of the falls, which if it is important for phass, it should then be left in. And it might be as phass titles it with the break line as subject.

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 29, 2017

Vaughn said:
I would cut off the lower half of the image..and double check the level of your horizon (which is probably level, but just does not look like it is).

But then that would make my image instead of yours...so take that with a grain of salt. (I tilted the image a quarter degree counter-clokwise).

I would often crop more (or less) than others. However, I think this one works perfectly as-is. I like the added depth from the watery foreground.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 29, 2017

My first inclination was to crop the bottom third away, plus crop a bit off the left.

As I look at it more, I like the sense of power and mass that the dark water conveys.

Ultimately, it really depends on what the OP likes. I can enjoy the image as-is.

Vaughn · Jul 29, 2017

Excellent point, TS.

Sirius Glass · Jul 30, 2017

I like it as it is. I like to lead in at the bottom into the composition.

ced · Aug 1, 2017

Love the image but with a little crop from the bottom.
Enlisted the 5x7" crop and levelled the tree/water line

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

^^^ That's nice too but I definitely like the original best. I like the almost dizzying effect of all that water seemingly at my feet... makes for a more 'thrillin' image, IMO. Also, you might want to check your horizontal straightening.

grahamp · Aug 1, 2017

Being contrary, I like it with the sky cropped out!

Old-N-Feeble · Aug 1, 2017

^^^ I disagree. The horizon adds much needed depth and perspective. The trees in the background provide reasonable inference regarding the immense/awesome size/power of all that water.

Vaughn · Aug 1, 2017

grahamp said:
Being contrary, I like it with the sky cropped out!

Interesting...without the horizon, the expance of dark water in the foreground becomes much more dominant in the image for me...and much more about the Break Line.

Sirius Glass · Aug 1, 2017

Old-N-Feeble said:
^^^ I disagree. The horizon adds much needed depth and perspective. The trees in the background provide reasonable inference regarding the immense/awesome size/power of all that water.

+1

ChuckP · Aug 2, 2017

How about spotting down those 2 white hot spots on the right edge. One near the top and the other around the mid point.

Sirius Glass · Aug 2, 2017

ChuckP said:
How about spotting down those 2 white hot spots on the right edge. One near the top and the other around the mid point.

No, those spots show the turbulence.

phass · Aug 29, 2017

Hi all.

I'm profoundly apologize for not answering to you feedback. For some reason I did not receive a single email about your posts. With three young boys and full time job I completely forgot about my post. I'll do my best to answer to your comments.

This photo was taken with 500 c/m and Planar 80 mm C T*. If I remember correctly I put camera on one of the fence posts that separated crowd of visitors from Niagara fall. Original image has 1/4 of sky that I cut off.

I would like to keep lower part of calm river to balance the massive waterfall to underscore this contrast along the cliff.

I agree, the level needs a little adjustment.

Again, thank you for your thought and sorry for such long silence.

Cheers.

Breaking line.

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency