Busy waterfall

[ndwgolf]

Shame about the blown out center rock. All in all to busy for my liking.
Chamonix FN2 4x5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Jones]

Yes, cluttered, but nice if you crop off a little more than the top half.

[Vaughn]

My guess is that your stereo vision gave more depth to the image than you could achieve in a 2D rendition. I often close one eye to counter this. It helps me to find ways of creating depth within the flat plane of a photograph.

Photographing these types of landscape often requires one to find a way to bring some order out of the chaos. Cropping the top to create a square image is a possibility, but I would personally file the negative and return another day.

[Bruce Watson]

Photographing these types of landscape often requires one to find a way to bring some order out of the chaos. Cropping the top to create a square image is a possibility, but I would personally file the negative and return another day.

Yes. This is one reason that photographers often revisit a particular place over and over and over. Because it's difficult to make a satisfying photograph of the place, but we know one can be made -- if we can just figure it out.

So go back and try again. And again. And again. Until you find a satisfying solution. But while you're there, look around at the other possibilities.

More than once I've found that the reason I couldn't make a satisfying photograph at a place was because I was looking in the wrong direction. I often tell people -- look at what everyone else is looking at. Then turn around and look behind you. You never know what you'll find.

One of my wife's favorite photographs out of my portfolio came from that. It's a photo of a cliff that was opposite a big noisy beautiful waterfall. There were no good approaches to the waterfall for an LFer to take (not that I didn't try), but this cliff was just standing there in all it's unseen glory. Unseen because people couldn't take their eyes and cameras off the waterfall.

I'm just sayin', look around. Maybe the waterfall isn't the most interesting photograph that location has to offer.

[ndwgolf]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.........

First of all I agree with all the comments about cropping the top 60% out (Done already). The issue I had was that from a distance I saw a picture, so I scrambled down an abankment with my 4x5 gear to think to myself.........naa thats not as good as I thought it was going to be. But not prepared to leave without taking a picture (not easy for 60 year olds to get to the place in the first place). Anyway I took what I thought was the best but now realise that it looks better cropped (thats the beauty of shooting in LF, plenty of detail to allow big crops)
Here is the cropped version

Neil

[Willie]

Maybe working a bit with a exposure and a developer like Pyrocat HD that helps with highlights will keep some of the bright areas in check?

[Richard Wasserman]

I would like to suggest an alternative. Cropping certainly works, but the photo now looks pretty much like most every other large format, black and white, waterfall picture. The original, while maybe not a truly successful image, is different from the vast majority. I personally like complex photographs and think that much of the problem with the original lies in the printing/post processing. The upper 60% including the bright rocks is much too bright. If that was darkened (a lot) and made more mysterious it would visually recede and support, not compete with the lower part of the picture. I believe someone whose initials were AA made a comment about the negative being the score, while a print is the performance... I think that applies here—well, it always applies, but this I think is quite a clear example. Worth a try?

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't know why people agonize so much about "blown-out" highlights. Yes, the rocks are printed too high in the original post, but with just about any film on the market, you should be able to burn them in with very little trouble. No need to change developers or give up on the print. Heck, I intentionally "overdevelop" negatives to get the midtone separation I like and bring in the highlights and shadows with burning and dodging all the time. Yes, it's a bit more difficult but often very rewarding.

If somehow scanning and working in post to do the same doesn't work, then that's just another reason why I don't do digital...

Best,

Doremus

[ndwgolf]

here

[JMO]

Or flash the enlarging paper before doing the rest of the printing to help bring some tone into those brightest highlights in the distant rocks that are causing you some concern. And then, as Doremus says, burn-in the highlight of the moving water to the left of the center boulder nearest the camera. I, too, like the original composition better than the one in post #5; and appreciate the discussion here about how to wrestle with these busy stream-bed scenes with lots of rocks, moving water, light, shadow and foliage all about - as I've struggled a bit with such scenes in my own LF photography.