Back Modifications (0)
Views: 55 (31 Unique)  Award Shortlist   

waterfall

By lagomera
This waterfall has been modified but was wondering whether composition could be improved.Branches and distractions have been taken away. How could something like this be made to look more exciting?

Tags: Landscape and travel

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Win prizes, kudos, recognition! Enter AOP prestigious Photography Awards before 7 August
This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.

Comments


Sooty_1 6 1.5k 219 United Kingdom
1 Oct 2012 11:16PM
The problem here is the cloning is obvious, as is the darkening applied to the highlight in the foreground.
There are too many repetitions, so I guess there wasn't much to clone from, and a river seldom appears from a wall of trees. My eyes scan up to the trees along the falls, then finds nothing of interest, so I think you need something to break up the background and allow continuation upriver. The falls themselves are slightly overexposed, and you have tried to hide the blown highlights, where slightly less exposure would allow you to bring back detail from the shadows but keep the highlights under control.

I'm sure there are pictures to be had here, but with no clue what it really looked like, it's hard to suggest much.

Nick

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Focus_Man 6 481 631 United Kingdom
2 Oct 2012 9:40AM
Totally agree with Nick here and as he said cloning is always difficult from a small area and the "stippling" method rather than sort of "copying" in the cloning does help a little. If nothing else it helps avoid the repetetive pattern seen here.

As you have probably guessed, it could also do with some foreground and maybe backround interest as well.

Frank
pamelajean Plus
10 959 1818 United Kingdom
2 Oct 2012 5:26PM
I think it's a case of trying again, Phyllis, which is a shame if you cannot visit the waterfall again.
It would have been useful to see the original before modification.
It's a nice little fall, and where the water isn't burnt out, you have some nice detail in the water.
What was so awful in the background that you deemed it necessary to remove it? As it is here, I think you have far too much green in the top of the frame, so some of the distractions that you cloned out could probably just have been cropped away.
I'd like to have seen the water starting near the top of the frame, and some of the still water pool at the bottom included. This might make it "look more exciting" and give a sense of height to the falls.
Also, Phyllis, the fall appears to have a nice S curve, going off to the left at the bottom, and I would therefore suggest less space on the right and more on the left, following that S curve, so the viewer's eye follows the water down and to the left.
As Nick says, less exposure would have avoided the burnt out areas on the water. You could use some negative exposure compensation, or a polarizing filter, and a lower ISO setting.
Cloning that doesn't actually look like cloning does take quite a bit of practice, so don't be despondent, just keep at it.
Have a look at these waterfall pictures on EPZ and take note of the camera settings. A lot of photographers use long exposures in order to show the water movement, but it isn't a necessity.
Pamela.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.