Hmmm, juries are all different. When my mother used to make the rounds of juried art shows in the San Francisco Bay Area for her water colors, the same work would get accepted by one show then rejected by the next. She would just shrug and say that juries are composed of people with their own opinions.
You need to have the waterfall experts here critique this, but speaking for myself I don't see any glaring problems and it's a beautiful shot. Other than the corner of the sky in the ULC, it looks good at this rez. Hard to second-guess people. Perhaps it was on the fence and missed by one person. Chalk it up to the vagaries of personality and move on to the next show. Good luck.
This is a great scene. I'd crop or clone out the bright areas in the ul and ur corners. I'd try a levels adjustment to brighten it up just a little; After that, it would benefit from selective contrast/saturation work to punch it up a bit, especially in the falls; it's subjective, but it looks a little flat to me. For any of these, a light touch is all that would be needed, imo.
As Marc stated, it's tough to know what's in a jury's head unless they told you why it was rejected. It could be that they had plenty of waterfall shots (especially if it's a local show) and just had a need for other subjects.
I would crop out the bright portions of sky in the upper corners, increase contrast slightly and lighten the mossy greens. I also think this would have benefited (if possible) from a stronger foreground, perhaps some rocks and water leading up to the falls. I did art shows for several years and found that to try and figure out what the show's jurors like and dislike is tougher than doing the show itself. Some shows give you juror feedback but most do not and just leave you wondering what you should have done differently. Sometimes it's just a numbers game...too many submitted images of similar subject matter and someone has to be left out.
I agree with Mark W. on the foreground, from experience in here. And all i have to say is that Its a nice picture that anyone can take, like a point and shoot. (of which i have many :) )We tend to want that shot that no one else is willing to get, stand five feet deep in the rushing water if you have to, wade out into the surf chest high with crashing waves all around you, those type of things that stand above what others may not do. But even if you do that, make sure you can compose a picture, even use your camera correctly, it all has to work together. Some can learn composition, others it comes natural and it shows. My 2c's. Cliff
My brutally honest opinion would be that waterfalls are one of the more overshot, amateurish type of photos done. To me, it's one of the most unoriginal types of photos anyone can do, maybe second only to seascapes.
If I was a judge I'd take one look at this photo and think "well, here's someone who is doing pretty well with the technicals of photography but is still working through the beginner comps and has not yet found a style".
All the above comments sound about right to me. Mark's is the hardest to take, but he's right-- at least with regard to juried exhibitions. That said, I think this is an image to be proud of. Work on it a little more as per above suggestions, and keep right on showing it. People shoot waterfalls a lot, well... cuz people just love to look at 'em and watch 'em and remember 'em.
I have to markedly disagree with Mark on the subject of waterfalls. Yes, there is only so much one can do with a waterfall, but the fact that there really are no two waterfalls that look alike removes a lot of the monotony of the subject (of course if you get one or two really easily accessed waterfalls - a la The Gorge - then that sort of becomes moot).
That said, Moon Falls really is not a very photogenic waterfall as far as I'm concerned. The fact that you have to aim so vertically to frame the whole waterfall, making it virtually impossible to not include some of the sky, really hurts its potential. The low streamflow and the way the water scatters across the cliff breaks its consistency up too. As it is, cropping off the bits of sky and brightening the water a bit would help, but I'm not sure I'd pick this as submittable to any sort of judged competition.
Either Spirit Falls or Pinard Falls, both really close to Moon Falls, would be much better subjects in my professional waterfall bagging opinion.
On the business/marketing side of juried shows, the jury's job is to bring people into the show. They do that in large part by ensuring a diversity of subjects represented by the highest quality images in any given category.
Regardless of whether or not one finds originality in the character of different waterfalls, they're just terribly common, especially in this area. So in order to get those types of shots into a show, they'd have to be exceptional on every level - there's just too much competition.
Personally, I find the falls in your shot very photogenic. Interestingly, the things I like about it are the things that Bryan said don't impress him much, in particular the tangled, dendritic flow of the water. So, there's a microcosm of your jury - widely varying opinions on what's visually compelling and what's not.
If I were wanting to do the art show circuit, I'd research previous years' exhibitors to see what was selected. I'd try to find an unfilled niche, or identify a category where my work exceeded the quality of what is currently being selected by the jury. You'll have to submit what has the best chance of being accepted as opposed to submitting what you think are your best/favorite shots.
I think you have a good answer with all the replies. Folks here have different opinions of what they like and don't like. Jurors will be the same. It is a very nice shot, but nothing really catches my eyes and draws me in.
I may be relatively new to this forum and photography in general but to state that there is something inherently amateurish and unoriginal about waterfall or seascape shots is BS.
There are a lot of talented people here, Mark Hudon included, and great advice, but there is alot of hypocrisy as well. I didn't notice Mark Hudon saying that waterfall and seascape shots were unoriginal and amateurish when Marc Adamus shoots them. Then they are "magical", "dreamy", and "totally sweet". (Mark's words).
As far as this image goes, I like the composition. The foreground element adds depth and interest. Ther are some bright areas in the upper left that draw my eye away. The scene could be a bit brighter as well.
It's a nice image but not a knockout. I hope you will keep shooting waterfalls and striving to refine and perfect the images to your satisfaction.
You can count the waterfall shots on my web site. I believe there are two. Both I took years ago. If they didn't keep selling, I'd take them off and never shoot another waterfall again.
Magical, Dreamy, Totally Sweet, overshot and boring I might add. Marc does a real nice job with them but ultimately they don't say "art" and "creativity" to me.'
How many of you went up to Ruckle Creek and shot that very same cascade with the bent over tree in the background? Recently someone here posted a Elowah Falls shot. My first thought was "haven't I seen this before? Didn't someone else shoot this this spring"? IMHO that's not the way to get into a juried show. Marc knows they sell, he knows he's not creating art or being creative.
THANKS !! Everyone. It's never pleasant to be rejected, but it can help make it easier to hear the various truths.
I did crop the highlights, present already, so early in the morning. However, I didn't think about cloning out the last little bits.
Just as in the above, I have been conservative with color adjustments & enhancements. I am still in the basics & hopefully learning. That's why I am asking the question.
I have shot Moon Falls as well, but haven't heard of Pinard Falls. Thanks !
I just like waterfalls. I find being there (usuallly alone) & creating a visual reminder (hopefully for others) to be very "special". However, I have learned a lot about how others might see these images. Most specificly in a "Juried Exibition".
I did not have the opportunity to preview previous years exibitions. I selected three images that I hoped would represent aspects of my work. The images are from early in my current work experience. I have since incorporated the foreground placement that was suggested.
While I do like the images that I submitted, I now realize my choices did not offer me the best opportunity to show. Fortunately, with your help; I have learned some new things that will help me as I grow photographly.
I totally disagree with Mark on his take on waterfalls and ocean shots. Amateurish ? Really ? Wow, very cheap shots in my opinion. Marc's not being creative ? You really think that way ?
This was the first year I went off-trail hiking in the gorge and loved it (and yea, I visited and hiked all 3 waterfalls on Ruckle Creek). Going to a waterfall that maybe 20 or 30 other people visit was a blast - getting there was even more fun that shooting. There are lots of beautiful images to be had and all have as much artistic measure in my opinion as an old barn door shot that you like shooting.
I have great respect for your work but this attitude is really judgmental and crass in my opinion.
Though there are many new names, it is good to see after a long absence from this forum that some issues haven't changed much in my hiatus. Participants looking for honest and forthright comments/critiques, participants giving input, and participants getting upset when opinions are expressed. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh it is good to have something I can count on :-)!
I tend to agree with (most of) Mark's comments...waterfalls, in particular, are overdone and in the highly competitive art show field you have to do something to make you stand out from the crowd.
Certain calendar companies feel the same way as they no longer accept waterfall images in their photographers' submissions.
Seascapes are overdone also but at least there is potential for more variety than that offered by waterfalls. Come to think of it moutainscapes are overdone, too....getting alot tougher to be original these days.
I think original vision is more important than original subject matter. The latter doesn't hurt, but the former is far more likely to elicit an emotional response from me, which is what good photography is about, imo.
Thinking about what Tony Kuyper does with sandstone, what Guy Tal does with intimate scenes and what Marc A. does in extracting every ounce of drama that a scene has to yield... they all have a lot of compelling images of oft-photographed subjects; they just see them differently than other photographers.
So, I'd agree that waterfalls, mountains, slot canyons(!) are all very common subject matter - and agree that finding "original" subject matter is quite the challenge these days - but I don't know that it matters all that much. Uncommon artistic vision will overcome the challenges of common subject matter.
Posted by Chris Hodney on July 6, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I like this shot John. I can't offer any insight into why it would have been rejected, but I will say it appears slightly dark overall, and there seems to be a bluish tint to the water and rocks. Contrast, especially, in the foreground is really nice. I like the inclusion of the logs at the bottom, and don't agree to crop them out.
Discussion
18 repliesThanks, John
You need to have the waterfall experts here critique this, but speaking for myself I don't see any glaring problems and it's a beautiful shot. Other than the corner of the sky in the ULC, it looks good at this rez. Hard to second-guess people. Perhaps it was on the fence and missed by one person. Chalk it up to the vagaries of personality and move on to the next show. Good luck.
As Marc stated, it's tough to know what's in a jury's head unless they told you why it was rejected. It could be that they had plenty of waterfall shots (especially if it's a local show) and just had a need for other subjects.
If I was a judge I'd take one look at this photo and think "well, here's someone who is doing pretty well with the technicals of photography but is still working through the beginner comps and has not yet found a style".
That said, Moon Falls really is not a very photogenic waterfall as far as I'm concerned. The fact that you have to aim so vertically to frame the whole waterfall, making it virtually impossible to not include some of the sky, really hurts its potential. The low streamflow and the way the water scatters across the cliff breaks its consistency up too. As it is, cropping off the bits of sky and brightening the water a bit would help, but I'm not sure I'd pick this as submittable to any sort of judged competition.
Either Spirit Falls or Pinard Falls, both really close to Moon Falls, would be much better subjects in my professional waterfall bagging opinion.
Regardless of whether or not one finds originality in the character of different waterfalls, they're just terribly common, especially in this area. So in order to get those types of shots into a show, they'd have to be exceptional on every level - there's just too much competition.
Personally, I find the falls in your shot very photogenic. Interestingly, the things I like about it are the things that Bryan said don't impress him much, in particular the tangled, dendritic flow of the water. So, there's a microcosm of your jury - widely varying opinions on what's visually compelling and what's not.
If I were wanting to do the art show circuit, I'd research previous years' exhibitors to see what was selected. I'd try to find an unfilled niche, or identify a category where my work exceeded the quality of what is currently being selected by the jury. You'll have to submit what has the best chance of being accepted as opposed to submitting what you think are your best/favorite shots.
There are a lot of talented people here, Mark Hudon included, and great advice, but there is alot of hypocrisy as well. I didn't notice Mark Hudon saying that waterfall and seascape shots were unoriginal and amateurish when Marc Adamus shoots them. Then they are "magical", "dreamy", and "totally sweet". (Mark's words).
As far as this image goes, I like the composition. The foreground element adds depth and interest. Ther are some bright areas in the upper left that draw my eye away. The scene could be a bit brighter as well.
It's a nice image but not a knockout. I hope you will keep shooting waterfalls and striving to refine and perfect the images to your satisfaction.
Magical, Dreamy, Totally Sweet, overshot and boring I might add. Marc does a real nice job with them but ultimately they don't say "art" and "creativity" to me.'
How many of you went up to Ruckle Creek and shot that very same cascade with the bent over tree in the background? Recently someone here posted a Elowah Falls shot. My first thought was "haven't I seen this before? Didn't someone else shoot this this spring"? IMHO that's not the way to get into a juried show. Marc knows they sell, he knows he's not creating art or being creative.
I did crop the highlights, present already, so early in the morning. However, I didn't think about cloning out the last little bits.
Just as in the above, I have been conservative with color adjustments & enhancements. I am still in the basics & hopefully learning. That's why I am asking the question.
I have shot Moon Falls as well, but haven't heard of Pinard Falls. Thanks !
I just like waterfalls. I find being there (usuallly alone) & creating a visual reminder (hopefully for others) to be very "special". However, I have learned a lot about how others might see these images. Most specificly in a "Juried Exibition".
I did not have the opportunity to preview previous years exibitions. I selected three images that I hoped would represent aspects of my work. The images are from early in my current work experience. I have since incorporated the foreground placement that was suggested.
While I do like the images that I submitted, I now realize my choices did not offer me the best opportunity to show. Fortunately, with your help; I have learned some new things that will help me as I grow photographly.
Cheers, John
This was the first year I went off-trail hiking in the gorge and loved it (and yea, I visited and hiked all 3 waterfalls on Ruckle Creek). Going to a waterfall that maybe 20 or 30 other people visit was a blast - getting there was even more fun that shooting. There are lots of beautiful images to be had and all have as much artistic measure in my opinion as an old barn door shot that you like shooting.
I have great respect for your work but this attitude is really judgmental and crass in my opinion.
Warmest regards, Simon
Certain calendar companies feel the same way as they no longer accept waterfall images in their photographers' submissions.
Seascapes are overdone also but at least there is potential for more variety than that offered by waterfalls. Come to think of it moutainscapes are overdone, too....getting alot tougher to be original these days.
Thinking about what Tony Kuyper does with sandstone, what Guy Tal does with intimate scenes and what Marc A. does in extracting every ounce of drama that a scene has to yield... they all have a lot of compelling images of oft-photographed subjects; they just see them differently than other photographers.
So, I'd agree that waterfalls, mountains, slot canyons(!) are all very common subject matter - and agree that finding "original" subject matter is quite the challenge these days - but I don't know that it matters all that much. Uncommon artistic vision will overcome the challenges of common subject matter.