15 Seconds of Fame

Gallery: LandscapePosted December 1, 2010158 views11 comments

Well, not me, nor this image in particular, just a reference to a beautiful, though mostly unknown creek/river in Northeast PA and the speed shot at. A view of the falls posted previously from downstream a bit.

D-60, ISO-100, 15 seconds, f-29.0, 52mm, CPL. This is a lovely view and wanted to play with a long, long (for me) exposure. Many thanks to Luke O. for some processing help and tips... did the usual stuff in Elements and tried using Levels, etc. on the exposed cascade (first time). Larger posted, C&C welcomed!

Comments

11 comments

Comment posted by Bill Maile on December 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Something a bit different for a water/cascades pano crop--I realize the FG lines of movement may be distracting to some in the original.

Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments

Comment posted by Mel Ladewig on December 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Bill, Looks like a great place for some trout fishing. As for the photo, the upper half is providing alot more content than the lower half of this image. You can't see much detail in the slate layers underwater, but there is no reflection of the upper half either and it isn't providing leading lines either. Strip it down to a pano and I think you've got yourself a nice shot.

And then you beat me to it by posting the pano before I submitted my post.

Registered on July 24, 2005, 114 Posts, 1205 Comments

Comment posted by Bill Maile on December 1, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Sorry Mel!! And thanks. It became apparent as I scrolled down the original post. I would like to leave a bit more room at the bottom of the pano I think. Next time, done processing for today!!

Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments

Comment posted by Luke Ormand on December 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM

That pano is reall nice... you could maybe leave a little more FG water. With a FF camera @ something like 35mm instead of 52 this would be stunning

Registered on February 4, 2009, 1093 Posts, 7035 Comments

Comment posted by Rick Gomez on December 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I actually like both. I guess the foreground won't work for others, but I think the streaks add interest.

Registered on March 3, 2007, 206 Posts, 1853 Comments

Comment posted by Scott Smorra on December 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I definitely prefer the pano version Bill, since the bottom half of the original feels a bit empty. This one turned out very nice for a 15 sec exposure.

Registered on November 2, 2009, 161 Posts, 2143 Comments

Comment posted by Nick Bristol on December 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM

The pano for me too, Bill. It looks really cool that way to me. Nice!

Nick Bristol
lone Rock, WI.

Registered on February 1, 2004, 752 Posts, 14140 Comments

Comment posted by Bill Maile on December 1, 2010 at 8:46 PM

agreed on the pano, need more room in front.
thanks Luke.

Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments

Comment posted by Bill Maile on December 1, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I still enjoy the broader, wide view btw. great place. ;)

Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments

Comment posted by Lon Overacker on December 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Bill,

The details in the larger version are much better. I too would prefer a narrow crop, although maybe not as much as you did in your repost. I'd like to see some of the greenish water included; maybe cropping half the water instead of all? Of course it's entirely up to you...

Lon

Registered on November 24, 2006, 521 Posts, 19147 Comments

Comment posted by Bill Maile on December 2, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Thanks Lon, let me try one more time with this... I think it may be the winner, but that's just IMO.

Registered on March 2, 2009, 984 Posts, 2518 Comments