Posted by Marc Adamus on April 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Thanks for commenting.
1DsIII, 16-35 II, 3-stop GND, polarizer, 8 sec. at f/20.
Posted by Marc Dilley on April 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Beautiful light and the exposure seems perfect, Marc. The central placement of the cleft works for me. There is a bit of horizon curvature but it isn't a bother. Of what purpose is the polarizing filter when there is no direct light?
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Simply lengthening the exposure in this case. I wanted a very smooth effect on the water. This was shot at ISO 50 also.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on April 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The colors and composition look great! I like the direction of the water flow from two sources.
It looks like your new 16-35L II is doing a good job in capturing the details at least from a web shot. I was beginning to lose faith in Canon's lenses at the wide end after the latest reviews and comparisons with Nikon's newest 14-24/2.8. But it seems like Canon is still getting the job done quite well here actually.
Are you generally satisfied the 16-35L II overall performance across the frame, especially in zone C along the edges/corners?
I am liking almost EVERY element in this shot.Colors are great, good sense of motion using the slow shutter speed, Good atmosphere, good exposure and sense of place....now...I might just be having a rough day, but somthing about the composition just seems out of kilter. Somthing about the dymamic flow of the shot seems a little unbalanced and slightly bottem heavy not allowing the main subject (the falls) to take the strongest part of the viewers focus. Other than that (and it is more knit picking than a serious flaw) Very nice!
PS....I hope that you might find time to meet us out at the Wooden Shoe Tulip Fields this Saturday at daybreak. I understand if you are busy...but would like to take a few seconds and ask you to attend if possable.
John, I did. I can't really see much here when I line it up to the screen.
Roman, quite honestly I don't shoot the Tulip fields. The whole man-made aspect of it ruins it for me. I'm really strictly a wilderness shooter. No offense though, you guys have made some great shots out there before. I'm especially busy this week also.
Derek, while I do believe Nikon has better wide angle glass by a small margin, I think the performance of the 16-35 II is acceptable by almost any standards, even the edges and corners. I gotta say they did make a noticable improvement in the corner/edge sharpness in the last upgrade.
Posted by Mary Dempsey on April 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Marc,
I really like the soft colors and the sharpness and detail of the rocks. And as always the waterfall is my favorite subject. May I ask where this was shot?
Marc,
I really like this. As I recall, when you posted this composition from last year, there was a few comment's like Roman's take on this one. There is alot going on but it works.
Marc, both this and your past shot are impressive and each has it's own unique qualities. I like the phenominal detail in the rocks afforded by the Mark III's resolution and I'm with Khristian on the amazing shadow detail. However, I prefer the slightly harder lighting and varied colors of your "Ocean View Falls" shot.
Posted by Sean Watson on April 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Marc,
As usual, you've produced another terrific shot. Nice job (again). I especially like the subtle light on the rocks in the foreground and the sky's reflected color in the water near to the horizon.
There are a few things that wish you'd done a little differently, though. First, the "falls" seem a bit too close to the right edge of the frame. What are you hiding from us?
Second, the set of waves on the left have that awkward speed to them where they're too fast to keep sharp and too slow to blur into the rest of the water. I'm not sure what you could've done about this. Maybe it looks better with a higher res?
Of course, these are nits (especially the comment on the swells).... just trying to offer something more constructive than "great shot, dude!"
Sean
Posted by Chip Phillips on April 10, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Nice image Marc! The one on your website is slightly more appealing to me. The aspects I like more about that one are the contrast/variance in color of the rocks and the format is a little bit more narrow-which I like. I do like the fact that the waterfall plays a bigger part in this one. Nice work!!
Posted by Bryan Swan on April 11, 2008 at 12:53 AM
I like the color in this version a lot more than in your original, but as Roman touched on, the comp feels just a little off. Maybe a little more on the right side would balance it to my eye a bit - I like the rocks on the left too much to suggest cropping them.
Posted by Marc Adamus on April 11, 2008 at 11:51 AM
You guys should see this spot where you have to set up a tripod to get this shot. It's so difficult it's actually funny how long I've spent trying to the the comp. to feel right, teetering on the edge of a 30-foot overhanging cliff. There have been times I've spent no less than half an hour making adjustments and it always feels just a tad less than perfect to my eye. I guess I'll have to settle for it though. There really is no better way to shoot this thing. Thanks for the comments.
Discussion
15 replies1DsIII, 16-35 II, 3-stop GND, polarizer, 8 sec. at f/20.
It looks like your new 16-35L II is doing a good job in capturing the details at least from a web shot. I was beginning to lose faith in Canon's lenses at the wide end after the latest reviews and comparisons with Nikon's newest 14-24/2.8. But it seems like Canon is still getting the job done quite well here actually.
Are you generally satisfied the 16-35L II overall performance across the frame, especially in zone C along the edges/corners?
- Derek
PS....I hope that you might find time to meet us out at the Wooden Shoe Tulip Fields this Saturday at daybreak. I understand if you are busy...but would like to take a few seconds and ask you to attend if possable.
Roman
Roman, quite honestly I don't shoot the Tulip fields. The whole man-made aspect of it ruins it for me. I'm really strictly a wilderness shooter. No offense though, you guys have made some great shots out there before. I'm especially busy this week also.
Derek, while I do believe Nikon has better wide angle glass by a small margin, I think the performance of the 16-35 II is acceptable by almost any standards, even the edges and corners. I gotta say they did make a noticable improvement in the corner/edge sharpness in the last upgrade.
I really like the soft colors and the sharpness and detail of the rocks. And as always the waterfall is my favorite subject. May I ask where this was shot?
I really like this. As I recall, when you posted this composition from last year, there was a few comment's like Roman's take on this one. There is alot going on but it works.
As usual, you've produced another terrific shot. Nice job (again). I especially like the subtle light on the rocks in the foreground and the sky's reflected color in the water near to the horizon.
There are a few things that wish you'd done a little differently, though. First, the "falls" seem a bit too close to the right edge of the frame. What are you hiding from us?
Second, the set of waves on the left have that awkward speed to them where they're too fast to keep sharp and too slow to blur into the rest of the water. I'm not sure what you could've done about this. Maybe it looks better with a higher res?
Of course, these are nits (especially the comment on the swells).... just trying to offer something more constructive than "great shot, dude!"
Sean