Jepsons & Tigers Clough

Just Dave

Just Dave

In Memoriam
Messages
29,876
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

John and I went to Jepsons & Tigers Clough Waterfall Near Chorley Lancashire, heres a couple of shots C + C Welcome

#1 Jepsons Clough Waterfall

3876920521_d7ebcb8fc9_o.jpg

#2 Jepsons Clough Waterfall

3877713966_fa7aee0674_o.jpg


#3 Tigers Clough Waterfall

3876920987_a69ab35539_o.jpg

​

#4 Tigers Clough Waterfall

3876921499_c318a3f011_o.jpg

#5 Tigers Clough Waterfall

3877714468_ba329daf66_o.jpg


Thanks for looking

Dave
 
Last edited:
All a bit long exposure for me. No exif so don't know what shutter speed these were. edit for horrocks - I'd normally aim for about 1/10th second for my taste in water blur.

Last one is the pick for me. Nice lead in with the log and all the stuff that isn't moving is nice and sharp. You'll probably tell me it is hdr now but if it is then it is done well and subtly.
 
Last edited:
horrocks said:
The more of these blurred water shots I see, the more I am convinced that the skill lies in finding the shutter speed that shows movement, but still permits water to look like water. I am afraid that these fail that test.
Click to expand...

Ah well it was my first time at long exposures on waterfalls

RobertP said:
All a bit long exposure for me. No exif so don't know what shutter speed these were. edit for horrocks - I'd normally aim for about 1/10th second for my taste in water blur.

Last one is the pick for me. Nice lead in with the log and all the stuff that isn't moving is nice and sharp. You'll probably tell me it is hdr now but if it is then it is done well and subtly.
Click to expand...

Thanks Robert, it was my first time at long exposures on waterfalls well these images were taken ISO 100, F16, ND8 Filter, ( which wasnt really needed I can see now) Between 8 and 15 secs, it is a very dark place and the light was terrible, I will go back when my legs have recovered as these are really hard to get to 20ft steep slippery rocky downhill, to the bottom, LOL not HDR

Robert and Horrocks have you any suggestions on other settings please (y)
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the time you used for these - it is a matter of personal taste. main thing is you need the contrast between sharp clear surroundings and your blurry water - otherwise it just looks like a blurry picture.

Small waterfalls look great when you are there but it is really hard to make an interesting composition with them. I'd be well pleased with that last one.
 
horrocks said:
The more of these blurred water shots I see, the more I am convinced that the skill lies in finding the shutter speed that shows movement, but still permits water to look like water. I am afraid that these fail that test.
Click to expand...



Sorry!....But those are my own views as well
 
Cheers Robert, I see what you mean, like with that length of exposure the wind blows the trees and stuff, I'll keep it in mind next time I go there and experiment more,(y) also I forgot to sharpen most of bar the last 1, which I processed this morning.

Fair enough Paddysnapper
 
Like the shots. Not a big fan of the processing.

in all of them, bar #5, the black point is massively clipped leaving large areas of shadow with no detail and some funny looking colours.

Can we see an unprocessed one?
 
ok, have a look at this (and forgive me if I'm being patronising, I have no idea of where you are with photoshop and stuff);

Capture1.JPG


On the left hand side of the histogram, it is bunched up against the side, meaning you've lost detail there. On the right hand side, you can see there is a gap before the end. This means there are no pure white pixels. So two problems. These together mean there is no shadow detail and you are not using the maximum range of the camera to display a full range of tones.

As this was shot in RAW, you can increase the exposure in whatever you use to process, so the histogram is touching the right hand side slightly and then use the shadow recovery to boost the shadows.

Generally, its about half a stop to a stop or so underexposed. You can overexpose a dslr up to maybe a stop in some cases and then pull back the exposure. It will always yield better results than underexposing then trying to sort the shadows out.
 
Gandhi said:
ok, have a look at this (and forgive me if I'm being patronising, I have no idea of where you are with photoshop and stuff);

On the left hand side of the histogram, it is bunched up against the side, meaning you've lost detail there. On the right hand side, you can see there is a gap before the end. This means there are no pure white pixels. So two problems. These together mean there is no shadow detail and you are not using the maximum range of the camera to display a full range of tones.

As this was shot in RAW, you can increase the exposure in whatever you use to process, so the histogram is touching the right hand side slightly and then use the shadow recovery to boost the shadows.

Generally, its about half a stop to a stop or so underexposed. You can overexpose a dslr up to maybe a stop in some cases and then pull back the exposure. It will always yield better results than underexposing then trying to sort the shadows out.
Click to expand...

cheers Gandhi I already know all that, that what I attempted to do (y)
 
Last edited:
I was going to say the opposite. I thought the last few were overexposed and could have done with pulling back!

So there you go - two completely opposite views in two posts.

the early ones I like. The tighter of the two logs is the best composition for me, but I would have tweaked the curves down a bit - I cut my teeth on tranny all the time, so am used to exposing for highlights and letting the shadows block up, preferable to my eye than washing out the highlights.

Your rendition is closer to my ideal the what Ghandi is suggesting (I am not saying he is wrong. There is no right or wrong!) I prefer detailed highlights and dark shadows. Others prefer whiter than white whites and detail in the shadows.

The correct technical exposure would have detail in the highlights AND the shadows, but that might be pushing it in high contrast situations. So the only REALLY correct answer is what YOU like. Everyone else can do their own thing!
 
Thanks ensflare

Fair enough somewhere in between (which is what my aim was :thinking:) and I'll get massive positive posts :D
 
Last edited:
Hi Dave - I agree with Horrocks', Robert's and Gandhi's comments, and in particular the missing white balance, especially in #1 and #2. Personally, I have to say that I'm not for silky water any more than wind tossed blury trees - the appeal of a photographic cliché is notoriously brief. That said, and less critically I would like you to know that I have enjoyed your presentation of Jepsons Clough Waterfall very much - it looks like a peaceful place full of pictorial possibilities. :)
 
mark greenhill said:
Hi Dave - I agree with Horrocks', Robert's and Gandhi's comments, and in particular the missing white balance, especially in #1 and #2. Personally, I have to say that I'm not for silky water any more than wind tossed blury trees - the appeal of a photographic cliché is notoriously brief. That said, and less critically I would like you to know that I have enjoyed your presentation of Jepsons Clough Waterfall very much - it looks like a peaceful place full of pictorial possibilities. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you Mark, we did have a good time there and it is very peaceful, it is a very picturesque place for sure, (y)
 
going to go back tomorrow, I'll try and get the water less milky looking, and without the ND grad

Ive seen loads of shots like that on TP and they all get good reviews, suppose its a personal preference thing (y)

anyone else got any thoughts on them
 
Last edited:
Quote Taken from another thread

horrocks said:
Dave, forgive me, my comment wasn't meant to 'slam' your shots in any way. It largely, if not completely, reflected a personal prejudice of mine - I feel that these moving water shots, like sunsets, are a bit of a cliche, and they have to be really, really good to pull it off. Most aren't, and one of the problems is that with too long an exposure, moving water stops looking like water and starts looking like milk - in the case of yours rather dirty milk - not appetising. Your exposure times have also left you open to problems with movement in the trees and shrubs, and I am not comfortable with your saturation and contrast levels, which leave some very bright greens and some very dead shadows. I should have said these things in my post.


Having said all that, I must make a mental note never to dare to post any waterfall shots here!
Click to expand...


Cheers Toby no problem mate, its good to hear your views, after all that's why we post images for Crit, and I can only benefit from them, and other peoples comments, next time less milky deffo :hug:

Well was going to go back today but its raining heavy, anyone else either like or dislike these.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top