Photo Competition and Forum  
                 
                 
Photo InfoPhoto Comments
author Marc Adamus
   
subjectNature
title Neverland
date5/15/2005 1:48:29 PM
detailsStanding in 3 feet of water in a deeply remote canyon probably never photographed at this location, I wedged my tripod into the rocks underwater and mounted my camera inches off the surface. Using a 2 stop ND filter, polarizer and 1 stop ND grad near noon, I exposed for nearly 1 minute to capture the slowly moving foam from the rapids as streaks, leading the eye and adding intrest to the fg. The grad brought out the already vibrant green reflections and controlled the distant brightness in this waterfall grotto. Canon EOS-3. Canon 17-40. Fuji Velvia. There was no PS work except a little dodge/burn, resizing and sharpening. Tell me what you think. I'm expecting some mixed opinions of this one. Logicor tumescent arthroplastic figured phototype malonanilic.
Driveling homography enanthin dosimetrist educative.
Microfloppy judicially keratoderma overfelt craze juv rotodome alphamerics.
micardis
cheap phentermine online venlafaxine
zyrtec
xenical online tretinoin
enjoyment cozaar vardenafil
effexor purchase valium perineostomy celebrex generic zoloft
lisinopril atorvastatin zolpidem
danazol ciprofloxacin paroxetine calan
rcd pipefreezing prograf arcoxia
buy cialis online sildenafil
zyvox cipro risperdal awn buy xenical
claritin d methotrexate

Polydispersity patcher excluded ballerina.

Christening missed corbicula delectable somerset hearty tilery.

awards
blinks rating
blinks: 324.8score: 9.064voted: 106

rank: 4291comments: 79viewed: 26872
version: 1recommended: 1bookmarked: 5
scores chart
Submit a named vote
Commenting and voting for this photo has been disabled.
1 ckldybr (A perfect photo is just a click away)   (5/15/2005 1:57:54 PM)
Marc this is stunning. What an incredible place. I like how you've captured the magic of the place. I bet this is stunning in a large print. Take care. Barb.
2 Paul Harrett   (5/15/2005 2:02:04 PM)
This is a very good view of a waterfall. I am
always looking for a different way to take a shot of a waterfall. Thanks for the idea!!
3 Gianluca Posella   (5/15/2005 2:03:11 PM)
bellissima
4 Judith P   (5/15/2005 2:30:43 PM)
great colour, texture and the main waterfall is stunning.
5 Jouko   (5/15/2005 2:38:41 PM)
Wow! Fabulous shot, Marc! From another word...
BRAVO! 10 / 10 !
6 Fransisco   (5/15/2005 2:39:14 PM)
Amazing Shot!!!
7 khaled   (5/15/2005 2:39:45 PM)
Stunning composition ... Great shot.. Marc !
8 Lai-In   (5/15/2005 2:40:18 PM)
nice but to bad, the whites are blown out!
9 NinaNikolova   (5/15/2005 2:59:38 PM)
Very good!Wonderful green colors!
10 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 3:06:48 PM)
#8 Lai-In ~ If the waterfall had texture to begin with, and it was lost to overexposure, that would be blown out. Not here though. Obviously, the realitive brightness is unavoidable in such a situation. There was no possible way to expose this better in my opinion. Rapids are in fact white.
11 David Forrest   (5/15/2005 3:09:00 PM)
I love the angle next to the water, amazing
12 Biaku (Karol Kubiak)   (5/15/2005 4:09:14 PM)
Beautiful!
13 Awadh Alhamzany   (5/15/2005 4:11:36 PM)
Beautiful ..
14 Kazimierz Morski   (5/15/2005 4:13:57 PM)
Good idea: more photo, less PS ....:)K.M.
15 MJFerron   (5/15/2005 4:16:47 PM)
It's a beauty. Love all that green.
16 Dan Cardiff   (5/15/2005 4:37:42 PM)
Perfect, good exp., colors, and use of light!
17 Modest Blinker 1 (5/15/2005 4:41:05 PM)
#10 Marc Adamus: This is a beautiful composition and undoubtedly photographing it presented some difficulties. However, I agree with #8 Lai-In. The whites are blown out and detailess. I don't accept that the falls looked that way to your eyes, unless the falls is completely different than any I have seen. Strange you act so open to comments except when they are not all glowing. It's a nice photo, but I have seen better.
18 Patti Sills (^-^ ^-^)   (5/15/2005 4:45:12 PM)
modest blinker #18..show YOUR stuff then!!. this is fantastic.
19 Modest Blinker 1 (5/15/2005 4:49:14 PM)
#19 Patti Sills(**silzy** Mrs White): I already do...and I know my stuff, trust me.
20 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 4:49:22 PM)
I love critics. Heck, just ask Joe. lol. I believe I am correct about the water though and stand by my comment "You could not have exposed this better". I don't appreciate your comment in regards to my discussion about the water. Good critique sites like this one are all about discussion amongst good photographers. By stating my opinions, I hoped to solicit an intelligent and thoughtful response. What am I supposed to say to "glowing" comments. Furthermore, the rapids are textureless due to long exposure no matter how they were exposed.
21 Ivan (Ivan Miksik)   (5/15/2005 4:54:16 PM)
Excellent!
22 docmm   (5/15/2005 4:58:10 PM)
A truly stunning perspective. You are a braver person than myself for standing so deep in the water and allowing your camera to get so close to the wet stuff. You wedged that tripod tight to keep the image sharp. The lead in lines in the water take the eye to the COF - where yes the whites are 'hot'- but overall this does not detract from what is a fabulous image.
23 Safety*Bob   (5/15/2005 5:10:28 PM)
Excellent shot
24 Ryck (Ricardo Kuehn)   (5/15/2005 5:11:23 PM)
Wonderful!
25 Patti Sills (^-^ ^-^)   (5/15/2005 5:15:29 PM)
then #20 show yourself:)
26 steve sharpe   (5/15/2005 5:23:56 PM)
Blown own water or not, ( i reserve opinion) this is a stunning shot, the time and effort put in has clearly paid off. Very well done.
27 ChristopherG   (5/15/2005 5:28:35 PM)
#23 comments mirror what I was going to say almost exactly. I will admit, at first I thought about the water in the Bg being detail-less, but then I read your comments. I agree that it oculd not have been exposed any better in this given situation. From that distance even if you had taken this at a fast shutter speed, I don't know how much detail there would have been. In this case the trade off for me was worth it. There are times where the overall composition is more important than a small technical 'flaw'. Well done
28 Greg (Greg Governale)   (5/15/2005 5:32:00 PM)
Very nice color, the composition also works. To get a single exposure that is better using current technology would be difficult. I do believe using current technology it would be relatively easy with a tripod mounted camera to take two images and combine them together. In one image you would expose for the white of the waterfall. With the second image you would expose for the dark shadows. Combining the images would result with a considerably better exposure on the focal point of this image. I consider the waterfall to be the focal point! A few rocks in the foreground or possibly some vegetation would also add depth to the scene, I wouldn't say they're a requirement. Greg Governale
29 joe bellantoni   (5/15/2005 5:33:36 PM)
marc:Marc:...with all due respect you are a really good photographer....that does not mean believe me that this scene can't be exposed better. I used to think that years ago and someone would always show me a new or different way...Maybe in your mind "You" could not figure out this situation...or I should say with what you were working with at the time. I have to say that the first thing I said to myself was, too bad the falls on the left have the highlights blown out....IMO they are. Now with that said....I would ask for ideas on how this could be avoided....
Imo it could not be done without some photoshop....e.g. combination of a few frames, but what do I know. You could have used a different film....velvia is just too contrasty for this.....IMO. A flatter film maybe.
Maybe even the MB has an idea. Or someone else.
I don't think you should take that as an insult either what the MB said to you....sometimes the written word just comes off that way.But, I think it would piss me off too.LOL
What about waiting for a cloud to cover the bright area....
You may be right about not being able to do better.....but that does not take away the blown area, and I do believe that is what the MB is referring to.
Film is film....that is one of the reasons I went digital....so much more latitude. Please don't take it the wrong way....I think we learn from these discussions...we all should be more tactful
30 joe bellantoni   (5/15/2005 5:41:43 PM)
I guess we posted together Greg...I was having trouble getting that many words posted.
As to the image I like it and also think you might go back and show us more of this area.
PS I would never put the tripod in the water anymore after having mine (without camera) sink in the mud and fall over.
31 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 5:43:05 PM)
To clarify my comments: What I am saying is that the falls could not have been exposed better in a single frame in these conditions while preserving the surroundings. I am not saying the falls alone could not have been exposed better - they certinly could have. Joe and Greg, you both raise a very good point about combining two exposures in PS. This is something I have never done. I first started digitally converting my slides and playing in PS only a year ago and haven't done much past levels adjustments and minor touch-ups. All suggestions are welcome. Joe, you also raise a good point as to the limited dynamic range of Velvia film. However, it has been my (maybe flawed) understanding that many digital cameras are not any more capable of holding the highlights in such a situation. Feel free to set me strait on that if I'm wrong. I really appreciate your time and insightful response. PS: I lost a camera to a river once already Joe, guess I'm a slow learner. LOL.
32 Greg (Greg Governale)   (5/15/2005 6:01:19 PM)
I shot slides for a long time, very contrasty!For some subjects It really works. On this type of scene I would use Negitive film.( color or b&w) It allows for a greater range of tones. In digital....My Fuji S2 handles highlights a little better than my Nikon D1x. The S3 is even slighty better. For landscape images get all the MP you can buy. I`m looking forward to getting the D2x. Canon makes very fine cameras as well, I use Nikon only because all of the lenses I already own. Switching is not much of an option for me!
Greg
33 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 6:09:18 PM)
Thank you Greg. I have certinly shot with every film available for years both slide and negative. I've taken Velvia into the field over 3/4 of the time since the mid nineties. I love color but the contrast is too much at times. One disadvantage to film is your stuck with it unless carrying two bodies, or removing and marking films, which I don't do in situations like this. The day was forecast as overcast and I knew I would be in an ambient situation most of the day so I just went with the Velvia. Certinly a print film would have offered impoved dynamic capability. I might add that my Nikon 8000ED scanner does not handle negs well either. Like you, I have been intrigued by the Fuji digital offerings and the very good highlight control it offers. It has been my understanding that Fuji is separating the pixels in thier sensors to achieve both high and low end tonal range. However, the Canon 1Ds Mark II will probably be my next camera, though the 20D sure would be easier on the budget! I am stuck with Canon (and don't mind) due to an assortment of lenses specific to thier systems. Thanks for commenting.
34 Modest Blinker 1 (5/15/2005 6:30:37 PM)
#26 Patti Sills(**silzy** Mrs White): The webmaster gave us the Modest Blinker feature so that commentors could express their views honestly without fear of retribution, not only from the authors, but from other commentors. Go back and read my comment. I didn't say the photo was bad. I said the whites were blown out. Not that it makes any difference, but I am on the Top Authors list. Can you say the same thing? Marc, I apologize for using your photo as a platform for an argument with another commentor. I do understand the exposure challenges that you faced in this situation.
35 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 6:37:52 PM)
I can understand your concerns over retribution. I would never consider such a thing. As for the exposure challenges I faced, feel free to read the further discussions which I have found helpful. My point on exposure has simply been clarified in my comments above.
36 Dani   (5/15/2005 6:46:10 PM)
Wow! Love the low perspective. Amazing colors and sweeping composition!
37 Les McLean (**** ))   (5/15/2005 6:54:18 PM)
#34 Marc Adamus: If I could add my two pennorth, I find that digital (especially high end), can handle highlights better than film, but (and it's a big but), the exposure needs to be spot on to do so.
In my running water shots I inevitably expose for the highlights, knowing I can pull back the midtones/shadow detail in PS, you can't replace blown whites.
I find the 1DS MKII, with it's excellent metering system ideal for these kind of shots. (similar to your EOS-3), with the advantage of the histogram display to post check exposures.
To the image, whlst I agree the whites are hot, it doesn't distract from the image, it provides a nicely balanced luminosity, set against the deeper surrounds, I particularly like the FG water trails, it gives the image excellent depth. On a final note, it's a pity you didn't have a touch of colour in the flow, (typically peaty gold/brown in the UK) then this image would really sing.
38 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 7:07:57 PM)
Thanks for your insight as well Les. Regards.
39 Patti Sills (^-^ ^-^)   (5/15/2005 7:11:21 PM)
all i said was show your stuff..why does a top author hide? no i am not a top author and i dont hide. its a lovely picture.
40 joe bellantoni   (5/15/2005 7:24:34 PM)
#39 Marc Adamus: Why were you stuck with that film? why 2 bodies? Just roll the film up and pop in a new roll. You mark the roll and go 1 or 2 past where you left off. Maybe you never saw the film tab retreiver so you could do this?
You also said you tried all the film available...think again.....there are a lot of films that the movie business uses just for times like this and you can buy them in 100 foot rolls and roll your own....Low contrast high definition stuff....really cool if you get some lists of them....Soon will be a thing of the past... all the film shooters are going digital...even the hollywood guys...lol

I like the way this dialog has gone I think we all learned something.Marc...you are a good sport for putting up with us. Thanks
41 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 7:41:25 PM)
You are correct Joe. Changing films or carrying two bodies is a hassle in situations where I am soaking wet and hiking/climbing. It certinly could have been done though. And no, I don't mean to say I've tried every film, just that I have tried most major brand name films in the last decade, both print and slide. I don't believe anyone has tried all of them. (note to self... must think, then speak) The primary reasons I hardly ever shoot print films anymore (last year or so) is because of my Nikon 8000ED scanner simply dosen't like negatives as much. That and I simply love Velvia colors.
42 Igor L. (Igor Laptev)   (5/15/2005 7:42:46 PM)
JUST AMAZING SHOT!!!!!!!!! Nothing to add.
43 LindaY (Linda Y)   (5/15/2005 7:46:34 PM)
Marc, I apologize if my comment as "Modest Blinker" seemed a bit agressive. The photo is very lovely and I understand the problems. The discussion that you have going here is a nice one and interesting to me since I have shot both film (usually Fuji...love Velvia) and digital. I had to laugh a little at Joe's comment on mid-roll re-wind though. I am all thumbs sometimes, so I never tried it. With my luck, I was always afraid I would drop my film and it would float downstream.

Patti, are you happy now that I have revealed who I am? Frankly, it wasn't Marc's retribution that I feared. It was retribution from people who feel that they have to jump blindly to the defense of their favorite authors. You spent more time attacking my posting than supporting your case by mentioning the strong points of Marc's photo.
44 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 7:52:25 PM)
I've considered the mid-roll re-wind Joe suggested and employed it sparingly. Guess I should consider it more often (just not in 100m deep river canyons with no shores). The underlying question throughout has been wether or not the brightness on the water helps, hurts or is neutral to the images asthetic appeal. As usual, it has been a solid conversation which we can all benifit from. Regards.
45 LindaY (Linda Y)   (5/15/2005 8:58:56 PM)
#45 Marc Adamus: Your question is tough. From an asthetic point of view, I would say that the brightness on the falls on the left does draw my eye just a tiny bit too much. That may be my taste too. Usually, I prefer an image like this to draw me into the scene more gently. However, the lightness of the falls in the center provides a nice complement to the slightly darker cascade on the right here which looks like it is more shadowed by the forest canopy.
46 joe bellantoni   (5/15/2005 9:11:57 PM)
#42 Marc Adamus: OK see I am the one this time....I was not jumping on you so don't apologize about...must think then speak...see what I mean about the written word. I was implying , not just for you but for the other film people, there are some cool films out there but you have to roll them yourself. Years ago I got 100 feet of Kodak Aero Infrared ektachrome....it was for ariel photos but with some filters it was really cool colors
47 Cory Bucher (Never Modest )   (5/15/2005 9:26:58 PM)
Excellent conversasion, I don't think I could learn any better than listening to everybody. I have a question: did everyone go to photography school? and if you did, how many years?
48 Cory Bucher (Never Modest )   (5/15/2005 9:28:50 PM)
Also, Mark this image is awesome.
49 joe bellantoni   (5/15/2005 9:32:56 PM)
#48 Cory Bucher(Can you hear me now? ): Yes Cory...the school of trial and error and a lot of reading and studying others images
50 Marc Adamus   (5/15/2005 11:15:51 PM)
Thanks Cory. Joe is right on with his comment. I surely have learned much more from watching and listening to other photographers and also through trial and error. I have no formal training, but have voluteered at the local college. The late Galen Rowell was an idol for me throughout my early years in photography. I read all his books and studied his techniques. He was truly a great teacher even though I never met him in person. There have been too many other influences in my pursuit of photography to name, but they all have been invaluble resources for learning. Today it is so much easier to find critique on ones work and view the works of others online. I continue to learn a lot every day.
51 Kylie Winder   (5/15/2005 11:31:32 PM)
Beautiful shot!!! I had just decided to try my new tripod in water when I read on and read about it tipping over!!! Now I'm not gonna try it!!! You should try enlarging this photo and framing it would look spectacular!!! :)
52 Cindi P (How did I get here? )   (5/15/2005 11:43:05 PM)
Ugh! So much to read ... LOL My 2 cents, Marc: Its lovely. Sure you could list your "I would like to see...." but the image is what it is and personally, I like it very much. Its serene and calming a lovely large print I'm sure.
53 ChizhOFF (Alexander Chizhov)   (5/15/2005 11:53:40 PM)
Great picture!
54 Debi Joranco-Arellano   (5/16/2005 12:00:35 AM)
Very beautiful Marcus!
55 Peter Beddek   (5/16/2005 12:17:17 AM)
Marc - I agree with Cory - this has been a great opportunity for those of us on the sidelines to learn something. Thanks for providing that platform. And for what its worth I like your shot but thought the water a little hot.
56 ck   (5/16/2005 12:59:33 AM)
Beautiful!
57 Arthur Ankh   (5/16/2005 2:04:08 AM)
Thanks everyone for a great discussion! I have learned something new again!

Marc everything was said here already about the blown highlights. I personally love this image. The beautiful rich green colors, wonderful composition, magical atmosphere make this image just outstanding. And even it is not 100% perfect it made me look and look again! So to me this is excellent work!
58 Lukrecja (Joanna Kilen-Redesiuk)   (5/16/2005 5:38:49 AM)
excellent
59 viro   (5/16/2005 6:48:29 AM)
excellent!!!!
60 blu   (5/16/2005 11:51:18 AM)
very beautiful!
61 Kris Bass (peter pan is so real ))   (5/16/2005 12:23:59 PM)
Wonderful discussion and excellent points of views here. Thanks for the learning experience here. Marc beautiful scene.
62 Yuri Bonder   (5/16/2005 12:52:34 PM)
Great
63 CherylB (I only lie when I do not like your pic)   (5/16/2005 1:08:53 PM)
probably a cloudy day would be best. I think MikeF told me after I commented on how well his running water kept details that he always shot on a clody overcast day, works for him, might work for you too.
64 Rudi Van Gestel   (5/16/2005 1:44:15 PM)
Superb image! Technically perfect! Real National Geographic qualities!!!
65 SSjoy   (5/16/2005 2:21:18 PM)
great shot
66 André Viegas   (5/16/2005 2:40:34 PM)
This is great Marc!!! Forget about MBers and bird lovers that spend their days at the zoo.
67 Modest Blinker 2 (5/16/2005 2:54:26 PM)
#67 André Viegas: yeah, just listen to the comments from those who praise, not those who shoot birds or go to the zoo even though they may know something that you could learn from. It's praise or nothing. excellent suggestion and very logical sense.
68 Laurel Austin   (5/16/2005 3:26:38 PM)
This is gorgeous Marc...I haven't seen one of a waterfall set quite so far back and yet still have such perfect exposure and look so nice...congrats!!
69 Marc Adamus   (5/16/2005 4:00:15 PM)
I have said many times before, I enjoy critiques from everyone. We can all learn from each other. Everyone: Thanks to those who have commented.
70 Awais   (5/16/2005 4:54:26 PM)
very nice Landscape.
71 Hans Van Rafelghem   (5/17/2005 9:40:57 AM)
Wow !!!!!!
72 Curtis Forrester   (5/17/2005 4:22:38 PM)
Great work!
73 Blake Heminger   (5/18/2005 11:02:04 PM)
Beautiful!
74 Arman   (5/19/2005 6:09:10 PM)
Very nice landscape
75 Olo   (6/5/2005 8:06:29 AM)
excellent view - perfect greens
76 TERESA L. ANDERSON   (7/15/2005 3:35:02 AM)
Great shot. I love everything about it.
77 Andrei Sliva   (9/12/2005 8:35:15 AM)
I want there!
78 Les Booth   (1/1/2006 12:16:48 AM)
Marcus ...
Fine image; good conversation and much can be learned from good banter.

On the comments of changing film in 'mid-stream'; I've done this for years using a very wide array of film - being a number of the bulk-films Joe spoke of as well.

I've done it while hanging in mid-air 200' above the ground; hanging over water; kayaking between rapids; playing a fish on line; riding horseback and just plain standing on solid "terra firma" and myriad other places one would not want to drop either film or equipment.

In hundreds of such events, I never dropped a single roll; sweated on a few, but did not drop. However, I'd hate to say how many times I've been in a hurry to reload and grabbed a 'ps-roll' (days before Pshop; ps=preshot) and double-exposed the first-shots of the 'ps-roll'. Thus ruining - although I have had some pretty cool artsy-fartsy shots come out - the intended shots: of two subjects: or more! Not good!

In each case this has happened it was due to being in a hurry to get a shot while on the same outing - or before I could get the film in for processing.

Funny, I've never had this problem since going 100% digital. And my blood-pressure and religion have both been less threatened since.

Great gallery of photos. Thanks for the visual stimulation and conversations.
back to image
                 
To comment this photo please login, or register if you are not a member

PhotoBlink is a photo site that goes far beyond being a conventional photo forum or photo contest. As well as providing a rich environment for members to post, rate and discuss their photos and photography in general, it also features advanced photo galleries where members can exhibit, promote and sell photos. PhotoBlink also provides thematic photo contests in cooperation with photo manufacturers.

please wait