[Rob Barron]

Ok, giving another fall a try. This is comletely different to the other one but I like it for the balance between the foliage colours and the water and rocks below. See what you think. Unfortunately it is still very detailed and so suffers from a bit of compression problem making it look slightly flat in the foliage but I think it is reasonable. What do you think?

Cheers,
Rob

[skipper954]

Hey, Rob

For some reason, my eye wanders up from the fall between the trees on either side, off the top edge, so for me, the composition doesn't work well. I do like the foliage, however.

Might you have tried a faster shutter to give form to the water, slow it down so to speak, and relate it more to the trees and feeling of calmness?

skip

[dogdots]

My eyes are drawn to the smooth green in the center to the left of the water. I like the water. Looks good to me. I can see the energy in the picture. Water running like that has so much energy and sound. Almost can hear it

[Rob Barron]

Thanks for the comments Skip, I do usually like the eye to be able to go through the picture so not sure that this is a composition problem. There is a pretty large canopy of foliage there to hold the image together. I didn't want to have the natural flow of water as I wanted the smoothness here to contrast with the heavy trexture of all the foliage. I did other shots with slower water, one with it actually frozen but it made it look very busy and messy. I had to go for a slow exposure anyway to get a decent amount of light in the lower part of the picture. The foliage had some contra-jour lighting but the lower canopy was very dark and the rocks very black indeed so a slow exposure was the only way to go.

I'll be interested to see if anyone else thinks their eye is led out of the top. The generally accepted principle is that the eye is drawn to the lightest point of a picture and in this case that is very definitely the waterfall. Although the upper foliage is fairly light, it is considerably darker than the water so shouldn't be taking the eye away except for allowing the viewer to wander through if it wants to, if you see what I mean.

Anyone else got any thoughts on this?

Cheers,
Rob

[John F]

Yes Rob, my eye is drawn upwards and I think it is because the bright area of the water hurts my eyes even though it is very beautiful.

John

[fionaB]

i have to disagree and say i think the composition works as its supposed to, i didint actually even notice the colour of the foliage at the top cos i was so enthralled with the water ( until i read the comments) I have to say tho that i "think" i prefer the first fall shot, havent a clue why........ but it may be cos the falls are further away and it feel a bigger picture ( i dont mean in terms of physical size )... tis the best way i can explain it tho.

Fi

[Markulous]

Much prefer this 'fall shot over the previous and find it a pleasant enough image. Do find it a little 50:50 foliage:waterfall, so would prefer some of the top taken off (not that it's unpleasant, as it isn't, but it competes with the main subject). I'd be tempted to take the foliage down a stop or two (it may not be as bright as the waterfall but it is nearly so, and is bright colour!) so that it then frames and supports the main feature. The water exposure works well enough but I'd like to see more detail (in fact I think it's a little burned). All of which suggests I'm not keen - which really isn't the case!

[Geir Andersen]

Have to say I agree with fiona here. My focus is drawn to the running water and rocks, and feel the foliage just sets the shot of perfectly. Foliage appears a little flat as you say, but hard to keep the detail accurate when compressing.

The more I look at it I find that if I "focus" just above the center of the image, the eyes are drawn slightly towards the top. Focus just below the center and the foliage is simply a beautiful backing.

Amazing shot I'd be proud to have on my wall

[Charlotte]

On one hand I really like the composition. On the other, I tend to agree with Mark that the foliage is competing with the falls.

I know what John F means about the bright water hurting his eyes; although it's not blown, it is very bright. Not unpleasant, mind, just bright.

My eye tends to settle on the big black rock in the centre. I think this is, like John F says, a subconscious safety mechanism by my eyes, so that I'm not looking directly at the bright water, but I can still see it in my eye's view while looking at the rock.

Back to the foliage ... can't make my mind up about it, because it could do with trimming back, but at the same time it clearly adds to the image. Hmmmm

A lovely image, Rob, you did a sterling job here

[Les Meehan]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

My eye tends to settle on the big black rock in the centre.

This is probably because light tones recede and dark tones advance, which is how and why we perceive aerial perspective in nature. Also, since the dark rock is next to light water the contrast in the centre is strong which tends to attract the eye.

A useful device for assessing a composition is to turn the image upside down. This helps reduce the controlling influence of your left-brain mode and allows your right-brain mode (the spatial, artistic mode) to more accurately perceive the image.

Also, increase the viewing distance which reduces details and accentuates your perception of the shapes and tones in the image.

Les

[Les Meehan]

In this image I would be tempted to darken the foliage area about half a zone and edge burn all sides by 10-15% to hold the eye in the frame better.

BTW, for anyone who doesn't know about edge burning its a darkroom procedure that was/is used to compensate for fall off of the enlarger lens. However, it is also a powerful visual technique for 'holding in' a viewers attention in the image. For digital, make a new layer above image and use the gradient tool with a black to clear grad. Drag in from each side of image for a short distance. Once all four sides are done reduce the opacity of the layer to between 5-15% as desired. You will find it makes a huge difference! Try it!

Les

[fionaB]

that the same as a vignette Les?

Fi

[Les Meehan]

No, Fi. The normal vignette usually removes part of the image edges to form a shape (the cheesy oval being the most common). What I am talking about is called 'edge burning/darkening' and is a subtle, usually unnoticeable if done well, effect that helps to improve the concentration on the image of the viewer rather than the eye moving out of the edge of the frame.

Check out this simple image:
Without edge burning

With edge burning


Hope this shows the difference.

Les