Comment posted by Philip Hodgkins on July 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Go back with a tripod. The camera movement is a real deal breaker here.
Registered on July 24, 2006, 2741 Posts, 12349 Comments
Comment posted by Morris McClung on July 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM
I agree with Phil. You just need to revisit with a tripod, and use the mirror lock feature. It will give you much more clarity, even with your 28-270 zoomed out. This is a beautiful looking falls, and it's worthy of a return.
Registered on May 7, 2007, 670 Posts, 19650 Comments
Comment posted by Nancy Lea Sandy on July 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Don't know what your options are but if you're going back anyway, you might find a composition that isn't obscured by bushes. Pretty little waterfall and a very worthy subject
Registered on January 24, 2011, 576 Posts, 6942 Comments
Comment posted by Catherine Reilly on July 12, 2012 at 1:21 AM
...and if you have a circular polarizer, take it with you and use it to reduce the glare on the foliage. Your shutter speed is great for depicting the water flow. Good suggestions from the others, too. If you don't have a tripod or don't want to hike in with it, must find some stable support for the camera when using shutter speeds below 1/30, (or 1/15 if you have a steady hand).
Registered on August 16, 2006, 603 Posts, 9192 Comments
Comment posted by Nancy Wolfe on July 12, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Thanks everyone. Yes, I can go back because we own a log cabin up there. This waterfall is so much better and larger than it turned out. I agree, next time I will bring my tripod. I am not a lover of tripods, but at times it is necessary:(
Registered on April 7, 2012, 42 Posts, 103 Comments
Comment posted by Andreas Resch on July 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Yeah ... what happenend to the camera shaking here. "No tripod" is just not very well for that long of a shutter speed. The waterfalls looks very nice though.
Registered on November 14, 2007, 322 Posts, 6101 Comments
Comments
6 comments