Waterfalls in Oregon Or How Many Holder to Take On a Day Hike

[m00dawg]

Going to be heading up to Oregon and was going to go through one of their state parks that has a number of waterfalls accessible on a fairly short hike. The problem is I don't quite know what to expect in terms of shots (of course I can see what folks have already taken, but lighting, year, etc. etc.). I'm testing out a Lowepro Protactic 450 and noticed that I could potentially pack my Bronica SQ and 80mm lens, and my Intrepid 4x5, 2 lenses for the 4x5, and still have enough room for 12 (maybe 14) film holders (plus the essentials - dark cloth, cable release, light meter, filters).

For the 120, I was thinking of taking HP5, RPX 25, Ektar, Velvia, maybe Rollei's IR. For 4x5 I was thinking of:

Velvia 4
Ektar 4
Rollei IR 4
HP5 4
TMX 8

That puts me right at 12 holders and everything is arranged so it'll fit nicely in PrintFiles. I don't expect to shoot all that but wanted to have options because I don't necessarily know what I might run into.

Bringing the SQ is honestly because I'm nervous about running out of time or film but I kinda think I'd rather leave it in the car. That means I won't necessarily be able to just go back and get it though. I was going to have some spare sheet film in the car and a changing bag if I do end up snapping off tons of images.

That sound right or am I being overly paranoid or crazy?

[Two23]

I was there last year (Columbia Valley.) I didn't bother with lenses/cameras that couldn't shift. I used a Chamonix 045n and a 24mm PC-E lens on my Nikon D800E.


Kent in SD

[Mark Sampson]

To quote Henry David Thoreau; "Simplify! Simplify! Simplify!"

[Robert Oliver]

Remember, what goes down must come up. If you are hiking to Silver Falls, take as many holders as you are comfortable carrying out of the gorge! The hike wasn’t bad, but depends on what you are used to. Plenty of compositions to point at in that gorge. I think I took six holders down with me and could have used a few more shots.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh you're making it unnecessarily complicated. Too many choices just gets confusing and wastes time and energy. And the sheer quantities : twelve holders for a short hike? Plus med format gear?? Think of view camera work like the objective of a sniper: one good shot is all that counts; and ironically, the machine-gunners and shotgunners often totally miss the target. Think twice: Is this potential shot really going to be worth printing? Otherwise you'll burn out before getting anything good, or just be prematurely exhausted lugging five time more stuff than you really need. And I do know a thing or two about strategizing Northwest waterfall shots. One more thing - having a bunch of gear left in the vehicle while you out walking is
always a potentially expensive risk, esp in a well-known location.

[Vaughn]

I would leave the 120 for color and max out on B&W for the 4x5 -- not a whole bunch of color to take advantage of this time of year. But that's me...I carried a Rolleiflex for color along with my 8x10 (all B&W).

Twelve holders for B&W should keep you busy all day, since you'll be doing some exploring the park for the first time. Breezes and other visitors will keep you on your toes! Run out of sheet film? Head back to the vehicle, break out the SQ and have more fun.

Good luck!

[m00dawg]

Thanks all! Good comments all around! Also beautiful photo, Kent! We're not going there alas (partly because much of the park is still damaged by the last fire). We're going to, uhm...shoot can't remember which part it is, but it has something like 8 waterfalls within a few miles (5 I think on a 1 mile or so loop). Smaller waterfalls but I think I can get some nice intimate scenes. I won't have a long lens with me though (just a 90 and 150) which might limit me. I didn't think about needing to shift but yeah I could see needing to do some of that.

I agree with me over complicating it haha. I expect I'll take more black and white than anything else but I wanted to have color just in case, in part because I really want to nail a shot on Velvia in 4x5 at some point. I've had ok shots in Ektar (though I wish Portra 800 was available in 4x5, it's my favorite look among the Portras) but Velvia remains elusive. IR was for a scene where I thought having white leaves might be neat and plus it's really fun to shoot.

I had thought about just taking TMX and maybe just 2 sheets of Ektar and Velvia each to grossly simplify things down though. If it's real shady I think HP5 might become a factor though. I want to have some flowing water but want to try and keep some detail in at least some shots (as opposed to the painted look). So I was thinking that would mean exposures of around 1" or so was what I was estimating.

[Peter Gomena]

Most of the Cascade waterfalls are in pretty tight surroundings. A 90 and 150 will be all you really need on a 4x5. Long lenses, longer than a 180 or 210, won't be necessary.

[Drew Wiley]

Slow your mental pace enough to spend quality time with potential subjects. If people are around, you'll need patience to wait out them distracting your work. But more important, you need time to study the patterns of light, the breeze, and the specifics of the falling water itself. So many waterfall shots end up generic because these kinds of details, or this form of patient contemplation, is overlooked. It's the quality not the quantity of shots that counts. But I disagree with the "no long lenses needed" advice because some falls can generate a lot of wind and mist, and having some distance might keep your gear dry, plus give another kind of perspective without resorting to a lot of rise. But don't get too worked up about it - use the gear and lenses you are already most comfortable with. Film-wise, Velvia can be a real bear in terms of its often hopelessly high contrast, while Ektar will need a warming 81A etc filter in deep shade. For b&w, I'd stay with the fast ones like TMY400 or HP5.

[Willie]

You can't do everything at once. Cut way back on what you bring and work with it on location. Fewer choices mean more concentration on the image rather than fussing with all the stuff in the pack. You aren't in the military carrying a ruck with others depending on that 70 pounds of arms and explosives, radio and emergency first aid gear. It is camera gear. You can always walk back to the vehicle.

Take less and work with it and I bet you end up with more keepers.

[Vaughn]

Depending on where you are heading...this is five steps off the road (11x14 negs, silver gelatin prints). Columbia River Gorge.

[paulbarden]

Silver Falls is close to my home, so I am most familiar with that one. I've carted the Deardorff up and down that gorge a few times. At Silver Falls, the initial hike DOWN (the first falls after the parking lot) isn't bad, but when you're done for the day, its a pretty strenuous hike back up, if you are carrying 45-60 pounds of gear. There's no way I would carry anything more than the 8x10 camera and two lenses and half a dozen film holders, ten at most. The hike down the chain of falls is constantly sloping down, so to get back to the parking lot, its ALL uphill (though gentle incline till you approach the north fall) So, unless you have a friend to "mule" for you, I would suggest you choose one format or the other, but not both. (though admittedly, the Intrepid weighs nothing compared to the Deardorff) Besides, having more than one camera only becomes a struggle as you switch from one mindset to the other. That can be a distraction, not an asset.

[scheinfluger_77]

Kent I have seen a lot of photos of Multonoma Falls and yours is the nicest of any of them. Been there once myself. Vaughn is that Multonoma? I was surprised discovering it was literally just as close as you say.

[Drew Wiley]

There are plenty of falls to choose from. Once when I was up there an old college friend wanted to show me a spectacular set of falls way back in the woods he had discovered deer hunting. So I toted my Sinar 4x5 along and got a nice shot, and later made a print of it for him. Nobody had any idea if those falls even had a name. But my parents saw a copy of that print and instantly recognized it. They had hiked into there together in the late 1920's, before they were married (took awhile to get any financial traction to start a family while the Great Depression was landing and they didn't want to lose jobs in separate cities). Now, unfortunately, due to the web, LOTS of people know about it. It was Abiqua Falls near my Grandfather's old
mill, which now houses the Oregon State Historical Society. And alas, so many secret spots where one could once find total solitude are now developed Parks with paved trails. But apparently not this particular spot yet. It seems part of the trail is still distinctly slippery; and if you're coveting one of those spectacular icicle shots in winter, be appropriately equipped with
ice traction gear.

[Vaughn]

Kent I have seen a lot of photos of Multonoma Falls and yours is the nicest of any of them. Been there once myself. Vaughn is that Multonoma? I was surprised discovering it was literally just as close as you say.
No, Horsetail Fall, a little less than 3 miles up the road from Multnomah Falls.

Silver Falls State Park is beautiful -- I'll try to get back there one of these days (off-season). They had a tough winter and just had an emergency closure due to a fire.

The image below was taken on Multnomah Creek and a pretty good hike up to it if the recent fire has not trashed it. This is a 5x7 carbon print (w/ 210mm lens). 5x7 is pretty easy to hike with. I normally carry 5 to 8 holders for a day for most formats.

[Two23]

Kent I have seen a lot of photos of Multonoma Falls and yours is the nicest of any of them. Been there once myself. Vaughn is that Multonoma? I was surprised discovering it was literally just as close as you say.

Shot with an 1858 Derogy Petzval, Chamonix 045n, FP4. I was going for a 19th. C. look.:)


Kent in SD

[m00dawg]

Thanks all! Lot of information to digest! I didn't think about an 81B filter but that makes a lot of sense (since the shadows tend towards blue?) I realized it might be why some of my last color images weren't great for my last trip. Also all the comments reaffirmed I do need to simplify. I'd hate to not bring color and then find some place it might work, though, but maybe I'll just keep some color it in the car and instead focus on black and white. If I'm brave enough I could bust out the camera closer to the city and I'd imagine color might work well there (as would BW).

I bought a new box of HP5 so I could go all in there. I love the look of HP5 (though I had wanted to grab some Pancro 400, though it's expensive to ship and I can't find it in US distributors at the moment) but I recently really have enjoyed the look of TMX. Two fairly different looks I think though I want to continue to explore that.

I'm not necessarily expecting amazing shots - if I get them, great! But I want more field time with the camera and to enjoy the journey. That is one reason I liked the idea of taking the Bronica since it's also very very fun to use given the waist-level finder. I agree probably not an amazing idea to take on the hike (I'll be bringing it for other parts of the trip though, e.g. around the city and such).

Lovely photos by the way, Vaugh thanks for sharing those!

[Vaughn]

Thanks. FWIW...For color work down in canyons, in forests, and such, I have heard a polarizing filter is great. Most of the light coming down is bluish from the open sky above and the blue reflects off the upper surfaces of leaves. By filtering out this reflected blue light with the polarizer, one can reduce the blue cast without warming everything else.

Might be worth a try.

[Drew Wiley]

Polarizer?? Shame on you, Vaughn. Your Sasquatch license could be revoked for saying something like that!

[Two23]

Polarizer?? Shame on you, Vaughn. Your Sasquatch license could be revoked for saying something like that!


I am a polarizer addict. Use it for virtually all waterfall shots (and any other shot involving water) when using color. Polarizer makes a huge difference. I'd rather forget a lens than my polarizer.


Kent in SD

[paulbarden]

I'd hate to not bring color and then find some place it might work, though, but maybe I'll just keep some color it in the car and instead focus on black and white. If I'm brave enough I could bust out the camera closer to the city and I'd imagine color might work well there (as would BW).

Who said you couldn't do color if you only bring the 4x5? Load a couple holders with color film. Couldn't be easier.

[Drew Wiley]

I thought reflections are the name of the game! Why would I want the sparkle removed? I like my water with as much shine as an FBI agent's wing-tip shoes.
(Gosh, wonder where they still buy those things? Must be a special shoe store inside FBI headquarters.)

[Vaughn]

Polarizer?? Shame on you, Vaughn. Your Sasquatch license could be revoked for saying something like that!
Well, I don't I actually own one, but my cousin Vinny told me about them.

[SMBooth]

I was there last year (Columbia Valley.) I didn't bother with lenses/cameras that couldn't shift. I used a Chamonix 045n and a 24mm PC-E lens on my Nikon D800E.
Kent in SD

I was there last year and it was one fire... Out of curiosity what lens/format did you use to get that image (for next time...)

[m00dawg]

Indeed I was going to bring a high transmission CP to have in case at least for the 150mm. I was thinking both about the leaves and wanted to have it available in case I didn't want any reflections off the water (though I might want those, I guess I'll have to see when I get there!) Still might grab an 81B maybe to experiment. For color negative I have some room for changing the white balance in post, but for slide I definitely like the pursuits of getting it right "in camera".

Based on the convos above, I've got my holders down to 6 - 1 Velvia, 1 Ektar, 1 IR, 1 HP5, 2 TMX. I might swap the HP5 and TMX count but haven't decided yet (or maybe I leave the IR in the car). But if the above distribution is really off, I can make a run back to the car where I can have some extra holders loaded and ready to go.

[Two23]

I was there last year and it was one fire... Out of curiosity what lens/format did you use to get that image (for next time...)

Camera was a Chamonix 045n. Film was Ilford FP4. Lens was a Derogy Petzval, about 5 inch, shot wide open with 1 second exposure (using ND filters.) Lens was made 1bout 1858 so no shutter. I pretty much only shoot lenses made before 1860, or 1900-1925.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

I thought reflections are the name of the game! Why would I want the sparkle removed? I like my water with as much shine as an FBI agent's wing-tip shoes.
(Gosh, wonder where they still buy those things? Must be a special shoe store inside FBI headquarters.)


The sparkle is still there. The polarizer gets rid of the glare and helps to saturate the colors. It also can get rid of the surface glare so you can see the rocks etc. under the water. Using lens movement (shift) I can take two shots (upper & lower) and then stitch them in CC with no distortion.


Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

Glare, light, sparkle, life, reality. I try to avoid stitching. Best way to prevent stitches, casts, and crutches is to not fall off the trail.

[Drew Wiley]

Color balance is especially important to correct at the time of the shot with Ektar color neg film. It's a myth that every aspect of this problem can be post-corrected. I don't have time to explain the technical reason now; but carry an 81a filter or maybe even 81b if you are in deep blue shade.

[m00dawg]

Color balance is especially important to correct at the time of the shot with Ektar color neg film. It's a myth that every aspect of this problem can be post-corrected. I don't have time to explain the technical reason now; but carry an 81a filter or maybe even 81b if you are in deep blue shade.

Yep I'm thinking of picking one up because, once I thought about it, I've definitely run into that before. On a few shots they were happy accidents as the purple/blue cast ended up making the photo look awesome! But I think in this context those blue hues would be undesirable. For whatever reason, I do seem to have more trouble color correcting 4x5 Ektar negatives than I do at 35mm (and mostly in 120). Same scanner so maybe it's just my compositions but it's been a challenge. In fact my last hiking trip I had lots of (undesirable) blues in the shadows that made getting the right white balance difficult. Wish I had thought about an 81 filter at the time.

[Drew Wiley]

Often the uncorrected blue error in chrome films can be appealing. And you can quickly evaluate it on a lightbox. But the blue error with Ektar is a different story. Very few people like it - actually nobody I'm aware of.

[m00dawg]

Often the uncorrected blue error in chrome films can be appealing. And you can quickly evaluate it on a lightbox. But the blue error with Ektar is a different story. Very few people like it - actually nobody I'm aware of.

For sunrise / sunsets I found it pretty fantastic. Everywhere else, I agree, now that I realize that's what's going on, it's not often ideal. I'm going to pick up an 81B filter since they aren't expensive to have. I'm not sure if I'll even take a 4x5 color shot but it would be nice to have if I do (and will probably take color with my Bronica for other parts of the trip). There I can also try multiple shots with and without the filter to gauge the impact without having to burn as many 4x5 sheets.

[Bill_1856]

Kent, that's absolutely beautiful!!!!

[tgtaylor]

I always carry 81B series filters with me with 81b being the one most used when shooting slides; but for me they are unnecessary with color negative film since I optically print and the color correction is better made with the enlarger.

Thomas

[Greg]

Back in the 1970s started photographing waterfalls in New England. Used a flatbed wooden B&J "Commercial" view with a 12" Wollensak Velostigmat lens. Camera, lens, holders, meter and more fit great inside a large basic backpack. Over the shoulder my B&J "Portable Studio Stand" (wooden leg basic tripod). Was young and hiking up small gorges was the norm.

Come sometime in the 1980s, switched over to a Rollei SL-66 with 40mm, 50mm, 80mm, and 120mm lenses. Then one time had the Rollei set up on a tripod and the quick release failed, and the camera slid off the tripod into the water. Rollei got the camera to work again but the repair bill forced me to sell the equipment.

Recently started to photograph waterfalls once again, but turned 70 last year and legs were seriously hurt in an accident. Had to really pair down on my equipment. Final prints are Platinum/Palladium made from digital negatives. Considered shooting 120 and 4x5 and scanning the negatives, but in the end opted for a Nikon D850 with 14-24mm and 24-120mm Nikkors. Had considered using only a 24mm PC-E Nikkor, but just preferred having more focal lengths to choose from in the end. And using the Focus Stacking feature in the D850, enabled me to not need a lens tilt for certain scenes. Was skeptical of using the Focus Stacking feature, but worked out fine on the few times I have used it. From my experiences so far this year, Made the right decision. Tripod is attached to a Lowe Pro backpack which leaves me free to use a walking stick. Walking sticks are simple, being cut from young sapling trees. Have a bunch of them and it's common for me to leave one at the trailhead when hiking out.

For the times I don't have to hike up to photograph a waterfall and can set up the camera close to the vehicle, I use my Whole Plate Chamonix with various lenses, scan the negatives later. Honestly prefer this set up to the Nikon D850, but transporting the equipment for any distance just not possible.

attached image taken with the D850 with a very long exposure at dusk. Platinum/Palladium print from a digital negative.

[scheinfluger_77]

Well Greg I have to say this is pretty nice. Bet it is gorgeous close up as well.

[Drew Wiley]

Thomas - what color neg film are you referring to? Portra films are artificially warmed to a certain extent because they're basically aimed at the portrait market. Neglect a warming filter with Ektar, however, and no, you're not going to be able to correct things afterwards. You'll get an overlap on parts of the dye curves which are impossible to clean up by ordinary means. With Ektar, this usually affects the reproduction of blue hues, whereas with traditional color neg films, it is difficult to resolve yellows and oranges from one another - all those warming hues want to go "skintone". Ektar is therefore more accurate for most outdoor colors, esp earthtones, but does require warming filtration under bluish illumination.

[tgtaylor]

Thanks for the heads-up Drew. I haven't shot Ektar yet but was planning on shortly.

Thomas

[John Berry]

Living in the NW I have always used a B+W KR 1.5 with Provia. Unless you are planning on making C Prints, why would anyone shoot a neg film and have to work with the issues associated with film base during scanning. BEFORE you start the hike, go to the east end of the falls area and look at oneita gorge. I agree with the others, "Wide" a 90 and a 135 and good chance the later won't be used. In most shots, stuff will be close enough long lenses just work you get the DOF.

[Drew Wiley]

What is scanning? Anyway, the best transparency films are already gone, and the little that's left could go next. The last time I was at Oneonta Gorge I shot 8x10 Astia 100F, which was just about ideal for the contrast range, and has a dimensionally stable polyester base much better suited for mask registration purposes than Provia, which is on unstable acetate. More accurate color too. But with the demise of Cibachrome, I made a contact interneg of one of those shots so I could print it RA4 paper. It's windy in that narrow gorge lots of the time, so a slightly rainy day helps; it also helps soften the light if you are shooting chromes. Nowadays I'd select Ektar color neg, properly filtered; and yes, that KR 1.5 would be a good choice for it too.