Capturing reflections of foliage in a waterfall/cascade

[Mark Schaefer]

I had opened this thread on VFTT, but I wanted to share it over here also. Although the features of a digital SLR are very helpful in achieving this type of photo, the technique might be accomplished with some point and shoot cameras. All of my photos were shot with a Canon XTi digital SLR.

The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/8, 1/8 second ISO 100:
http://inlinethumb62.webshots.com/21757/2576618830102335886S425x425Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2576618830102335886rMiQAu)

The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/11, 1/20 second, ISO 800:
http://inlinethumb30.webshots.com/42461/2625320120102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2625320120102335886JgvwhZ)

In order to achieve bright foliage reflections in a waterfall it is necessary to finely resolve a few conflicting photographic factors.

Bright water reflections require bright sun, but bright sunlight is the enemy of most waterfall photos as it produces more contrast than can be effectively rendered in a photo. The bright sun will wash out the highlights and white water and block the details in the shadow areas, trees, and rocks surrounding the waterfall. In general most waterfall photos are best achieved on overcast days, but that solution will not help the objective at hand.

The bright sun will also create a glare on many water surfaces. A polarizer filter can lessen the glare. However, in the process this filter will reduce the reflections on the water surface which defeats the objective. For the objective at hand a polarizer filter cannot be used.

A solution is contained within the following basic guidelines:
Photograph on a sunny day for the brightest reflections.
Find a waterfall locale and time when the waterfall is in the open shade to minimize the glare of the sun.
Find an angle of view where there is bright, sun drenched foliage on the opposite side of the stream, directly opposite your vantage point so that the foliage reflects in the shaded, reflective water surfaces of the waterfall. Notice that slight changes in your vantage point may radically move the color reflections in the waterfall. Move around and try both high and low vantage points.
In general try to limit the amount of white water in the photo as white water does not reflect the foliage well. In general you will find that smaller cascades and sluiceways will be more reflective than tall waterfalls. Also telephoto lenses may be more useful than wide angle lenses to include the more reflective sections while excluding most of the whitewater.
It is often acceptable and interesting if small pinpoints of sunlight filter into your frame of view. Trees were shading the waterfall in my photos above. Small bits of sunlight did filter through the trees and provided some small interesting sparks in the photo.
The right time of day will vary greatly depending on the locale. It is a matter of when the waterfalls will fall into the shade, and when the reflected foliage will be sunlit. Some locales will have very narrow windows when the factors are correctly aligned. Others have wide expanses of time which remain optimal. Many waterfall locations do not work at any time of the day.
Use a tripod or other camera support to get sharp photos with slow shutter speeds. This will allow you to obtain a pleasing motion blur in the water. Experiment with a variety of shutter speeds and amounts of motion blur. The amount of acceptable and pleasing blur is often a matter individual taste. Fast shutter speeds can freeze the motion of the water. The frozen look may appear a bit unnatural, but you find that look interesting.
The proper exposure can be tricky, and the camera may not select the best exposure. With a digital camera you can review the results in the LCD screen and adjust with over and under compensations as needed. You can further hone the exposure later on your computer, but you will want to get close to a good exposure in the field to avoid losing detail in the highlight and shadow areas of the photo.

In any geographical region you should be able to find photo locations where all the factors align properly for good reflection photos. They tend to be few and far between, but they are well worth the effort to find. Once you find a workable location make notes about which time of the day is optimal.

Visit the location in both high and low water conditions as they will produce very different photo opportunities. The following photo was shot at the same location as the photos above. It was shot after a day with 2.5 inches of rain produced a more than 2 foot torrent which deluged the small cascade. The photo was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/8, 1/13 second ISO 100:
http://inlinethumb31.webshots.com/43998/2474976990102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2474976990102335886XfRpog)

I tend to use an expensive Canon tilt-lens for most of my waterfall reflection photos. The tilt feature allows me to achieve greater depth of field photographing relatively flat surfaces which are not parallel to the camera's sensor plane (camera back), and to achieve this without stopping the lens down to a small aperture. However, for most cascade and waterfall photos that is probably not a critical factor provided you stop the lens sufficiently to get the needed depth of field. To illustrate this I shot some photos with standard zoom lenses, and the results were quite acceptable. The following was shot with a Canon EF-S 18-55 zoom lens at 38mm, f/22, 1/6 second, ISO 800:
http://inlinethumb41.webshots.com/45544/2196488130102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2196488130102335886LULCzs)

The following was shot with a Canon EF 70-210 zoom lens at 105mm, f/22, 1/8 second, ISO 800:
http://inlinethumb33.webshots.com/42400/2211800720102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2211800720102335886NmXeiG)

Although autumn foliage reflections may be the most colorful, reflections can be an interesting project in any season. The best time of day to photograph a particular location may vary significantly with the season. I have noticed that some sites which provide good autumn reflections do not work at all during midsummer because of the more northerly path of the sun.

[Mark Schaefer]

Here is a brief description on the location of my photos. Those who live near the Catskills and Hudson Valley might find it a worthwhile location for a photo stop after hike. It is not far from the northern trailheads of the Mohonk Preserve.

This site is in the hamlet of High Falls, NY at the northern end of the Shawangunk Ridge. It is in a small park maintained by Central Hudson, the local electric company at a hydroelectric site. It is just a short walk, less than 100 yards from the parking area.

It is a photographic paradise for reflection photos. By a wide margin it is the best such site that I have found for waterfall reflection. It is possible to find photos as early as 4 hours before sunset as the stream begins to fall into the shadows. The photo opportunities expand as the entire stream falls into the shadows and as the light warms and intensifies until the sun sets. There are a variety of cascades and sluiceways over about 100 yards of the stream, and these vary considerably with the water level. The foliage is on a high bluff on the north side of the stream opposite the park. The high bluff aligns well with the side stream to produce reflections in the cascades near the southern bank of the stream from where you will be photographing.

In general you would want the foliage on a high bluff for wide streams. For narrow streams it would be more optimal to have the reflecting foliage more at eye level.

The location of my photos shown in this thread were taken at the center crosshair of this map (http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=41.82946,-74.13143&z=16&t=T). The parking area is just off NY Route 213, just east of the bridge over the Rondout Creek. A paved walkway (shown as a road on the map) descends from the parking area toward the stream. Leave the paved walkway just past the fenced mill ruins to walk through the flood plain to the cascades. From this point most of the other good photo locations are downstream as far as the small hydroelectric building at another waterfall.

As of this late October date most of the trees are now bare, although the oak trees are still adding some color to the reflections. The maples and birches typically begin to turn in late September with peak foliage about mid October at this location.

The following is an overview photo of this site taken near the end of day. Note the late afternoon shadows shading the stream, and the high bluff with sunlit trees which provided the color in the photos. The 25' "High Falls" is in the distance:
http://inlinethumb38.webshots.com/45349/2377630340102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2377630340102335886KKUtKM)

Here are a few slide shows of my Rondout reflection photos from 2009 (http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/575174811ovHMco), 2008 (http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/575284960uoPITG), and 2007 (http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/561426270GLfpoV). Each album was shot over several days through each fall foliage season.

[Mikie]

Mark

Real nice post on photographing moving water with a reflection. Really enjoyed it.

I grew up about 1/2 mile from High Falls. My parents owned a large plot of land between Bruceville Road and Rt 213. About 10 years ago Timber Rattlesnakes started to show up about 2,000 feet where you were. I was surprised that they are there. There were always a lot of snakes around there, but as a kid we never saw rattlesnakes there. You could find rattlers up Mossy Brook Road, and of course in the Gunks. You might even be able to find them along the shore where you were.

[Mark Schaefer]

Thanks for the comments,Mikie.

I grew up about 1/2 mile from High Falls. My parents owned a large plot of land between Bruceville Road and Rt 213. About 10 years ago Timber Rattlesnakes started to show up about 2,000 feet where you were. I was surprised that they are there. There were always a lot of snakes around there, but as a kid we never saw rattlesnakes there. You could find rattlers up Mossy Brook Road, and of course in the Gunks. You might even be able to find them along the shore where you were. In 35 years of hiking in the Shawangunks I have seen Timber Rattlesnakes in many areas of the Shawangunk Ridge. However, in general it is very rare to see one.

In well over 10 years of photographing at the High Falls site I have yet to see a snake of any kind. However, I will keep an eye out for them. That area is a flood plain, and perhaps that is a factor in not having seen any snakes - as they might be constantly flushed out of the area. Because of the uneven, muddy, and slippery terrain and paths -- I am quite careful as to where I am stepping. So if a snake was present I believe I would probably have seen it. The uneven and slippery terrain is probably the greater hazard there.

In general one also needs to be wary of flash floods at that site from sudden thunderstorms upstream. However, as I only go there on nearly 100% sunny days to optimize reflection photographs; there is very little of chance of fast rising flash floods when I go there. However, I have gone in there when the water was already at flood stage. On those occasions the dangers were already present and readily seen, and it did greatly limit where I could walk and photograph.

[Mikie]

The area down Bruceville Road and Rt 213 is all sand. Snakes and rodents found it easy to dig burrows. Both thrived very well there. The area by the Falls is fairly well populated, so it is possible that most snakes might avoid this area. If you go down Bruceville Road to the old Hurley Sand & Gravel pit, you will find a road. If you drive up the dirt road to the cemetery, you will find a lot of snakes there, including rattlers. Especially if you go before a rain storm. Very few people visit there. It is legal to drive up to the cemetery. The sand runs almost all the way down to both creeks. I would suspect that if you went further down the creek, you would find a lot of snakes.

The area (by the creek) between Mossy Brook Road and Rt 213 (across from Swehla Hill Road) has an incredible number of snakes. Including some very large ones. Most locals would not go in there. It is a herper's dream.

Sorry to drift off the main subject, which was how to get great photos of moving water.

[klip59]

Wow Mark, Love the photo's! They look like paintings.
Thanks for sharing your keen insight.

[Edelweiss]

Thanks for taking the time, Mark, to give us details on the set-up and technical suggestions for taking reflective autumn foliage photos. Yours are stunning. In mid October I had the opportunity to take some photos from a bridge overlooking Schroon Lake, near Brant Lake in the Adirondacks. It was late afternoon. There was no moving water in the way of falls, but the river's current moved gently, creating some interesting ripples. The bridge and part of the river were in the shade, the sun was at my back, and the birch trees and golden leaves of the foliage on the opposite bank were reflected in the water. I chose not to include the bank in the photo, only the reflection, to suspend reality and create an impressionistic feel. I used a tripod with my Rebel XTi camera, an EF70-200mm zoom lens at 125mm; f4.0;1/160 second;ISO 200; and UV filter. I did some minimal editing (saturation enhancement) in PhotoShop.

[Mark Schaefer]

Thanks for the further comments.

Very nice photo Joann/Edelweiss. I agree it is very impressionistic, much like a Monet painting with the water current and ripples creating the brush strokes. Like you, I also prefer these types of photos without any shoreline to keep it a purely artistic impression. Sometimes I show these types of photos upside down (either flipped top to bottom or rotated 180 degrees) to further create an impressionist painting appearance.

When shooting reflections it is possible to focus on the objects being reflected in the water as you did. In a sense you are focusing beyond (or under) the water surface. Another option is to focus on the surface of the water, for which you need strongly defined ripples or a pattern in the current. These are some examples of photos I shot a couple of years ago.

Concentric ripples formed by a falling leaf.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/200 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb05.webshots.com/45252/2247842480102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2247842480102335886rIBgIF)

New concentric ripples over older interfered ripples which appear as square boxes.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/400 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb19.webshots.com/39058/2283343970102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2283343970102335886MsDWuF)

Another option is to focus between the water surface and the reflected objects which lends a soft focus appearance and further abstraction.

Soft focus on boxes (old ripples). The focus is midway between the water surface and the leaves being reflected.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/160 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb15.webshots.com/46350/2180386970102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2180386970102335886rrXMrd)

Soft focus on breeze ripples. Appears similar to photographing through a textured glass.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/400 second ISO 1600:
http://inlinethumb36.webshots.com/24035/2687040800102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2687040800102335886MjLQxg)

Here is a slide show (http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/561386588qnFBfr) of some reflection photos with ripples..

I should mention that in order to focus on an expanse of flat water and to render it entirely in sharp focus it is necessary to use a tilt-shift lens such as the Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx). For water surfaces I only use the tilt feature. The shift feature is used for correcting converging parallel lines (as when you tilt a lens up while photographing a building), and in nature photography the parallel line correction is rarely needed. I use 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to extend the range of the 90mm tilt-shift lens. Without the tilt feature of this lens I would have to stop the lens down all the way to the f/22 - f/36 range; and even then it is doubtful that I would have enough depth of field to get the entire water surface in focus. Further even if I increased the ISO to 1600 I might not be able to use a shutter speed fast enough to stop the movement of the ripples. So I might just get a blur without this rather very expensive tilt-shift lens. One of the nice features of current digital SLR cameras is that you can get very acceptably sharp photos with good color at ISO 1600. This lens is also manual focus as they haven't perfected auto focus on these rather complexly engineered lenses. It takes some practice to be able to get the tilt, focus, and exposure set properly. It usually requires a few test shots to properly hone the exposure.

I can spend hours at a good pond, stream , or waterfall, or at least as long as the good lighting conditions last. I may not get much hiking done on such days. Often when I arrive at a location nothing interesting is happening on the water. Everything may look boring. But I have learned to wait at least 10-15 minutes to see if some magic begins to happen. A few leaves may begin to fall, water insects may begin to skate, or the fish may begin to feed creating concentric ripples. Or the wind may pick up creating some breeze ripples. If nothing happens I will occasionally throw a few pebbles into the water or tap the water with my boots to create some ripples, but rarely do I need to intervene as the critters will usually create something. A dog swimming in the water will also create good ripples.

[Edelweiss]

I particularly like the the first "fresh ripple" photo with the placement of the ripple in the upper left corner to suggest movement of the ripple into the rest of the photo, and the "textured glass" reflection shot which, like klip59, reminds me of artfully-placed layers in an oil painting. How close to the ground did you place your tripod and camera for your reflective rippling water photos? I'm intrigued by your Canon tilt-shift lens (Dick gets nervous when I use the word "intrigue." :D). Have you used this lens for close-up flower shots? portraits?

[Dick]

I particularly like the the first "fresh ripple" photo with the placement of the ripple in the upper left corner to suggest movement of the ripple into the rest of the photo, and the "textured glass" reflection shot which, like klip59, reminds me of artfully-placed layers in an oil painting. How close to the ground did you place your tripod and camera for your reflective rippling water photos? I'm intrigued by your Canon tilt-shift lens (Dick gets nervous when I use the word "intrigue." :D). Have you used this lens for close-up flower shots? portraits?

"Intrigued by" is Jo's euphemism for "drooling at the mouth and want to buy one of..." :D

Dick

[looncry]

Thanks for the further comments.

Very nice photo Joann/Edelweiss. I agree it is very impressionistic, much like a Monet painting with the water current and ripples creating the brush strokes. Like you, I also prefer these types of photos without any shoreline to keep it a purely artistic impression. Sometimes I show these types of photos upside down (either flipped top to bottom or rotated 180 degrees) to further create an impressionist painting appearance.

When shooting reflections it is possible to focus on the objects being reflected in the water as you did. In a sense you are focusing beyond (or under) the water surface. Another option is to focus on the surface of the water, for which you need strongly defined ripples or a pattern in the current. These are some examples of photos I shot a couple of years ago.

Concentric ripples formed by a falling leaf.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/200 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/46389/2112905560102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2112905560102335886nHvEUs)

New concentric ripples over older interfered ripples which appear as square boxes.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/400 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb28.webshots.com/30427/2820428150102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2820428150102335886TzoSFJ)

Another option is to focus between the water surface and the reflected objects which lends a soft focus appearance and further abstraction.

Soft focus on boxes (old ripples). The focus is midway between the water surface and the leaves being reflected.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/160 second ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/43612/2284224860102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2284224860102335886JTUNse)

Soft focus on breeze ripples. Appears similar to photographing through a textured glass.
The following was shot with a Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens with 2x Canon L teleconverter, f/2.8, 1/400 second ISO 1600:
http://inlinethumb01.webshots.com/10560/2709922640102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2709922640102335886DyTEUF)

Here is a slide show (http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/561386588qnFBfr) of some reflection photos with ripples..

I should mention that in order to focus on an expanse of flat water and to render it entirely in sharp focus it is necessary to use a tilt-shift lens such as the Canon 90mm tilt-shift lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-90mm-f-2.8-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx). For water surfaces I only use the tilt feature. The shift feature is used for correcting converging parallel lines (as when you tilt a lens up while photographing a building), and in nature photography the parallel line correction is rarely needed. I use 1.4x and 2x teleconverters to extend the range of the 90mm tilt-shift lens. Without the tilt feature of this lens I would have to stop the lens down all the way to the f/22 - f/36 range; and even then it is doubtful that I would have enough depth of field to get the entire water surface in focus. Further even if I increased the ISO to 1600 I might not be able to use a shutter speed fast enough to stop the movement of the ripples. So I might just get a blur without this rather very expensive tilt-shift lens. One of the nice features of current digital SLR cameras is that you can get very acceptably sharp photos with good color at ISO 1600. This lens is also manual focus as they haven't perfected auto focus on these rather complexly engineered lenses. It takes some practice to be able to get the tilt, focus, and exposure set properly. It usually requires a few test shots to properly hone the exposure.

I can spend hours at a good pond, stream , or waterfall, or at least as long as the good lighting conditions last. I may not get much hiking done on such days. Often when I arrive at a location nothing interesting is happening on the water. Everything may look boring. But I have learned to wait at least 10-15 minutes to see if some magic begins to happen. A few leaves may begin to fall, water insects may begin to skate, or the fish may begin to feed creating concentric ripples. Or the wind may pick up creating some breeze ripples. If nothing happens I will occasionally throw a few pebbles into the water or tap the water with my boots to create some ripples, but rarely do I need to intervene as the critters will usually create something. A dog swimming in the water will also create good ripples.

My son tells me he loves this ''propagation'' ''When a stone is thrown into a still pond,water waves propagate outward-when the water propagates outward from the wave,energy emanates from the disturbance.Mitchasks anyone""Which waves can propagate without a medium? [gam1 did you google to find your answer?!] :D Looncry

[Mark Schaefer]

How close to the ground did you place your tripod and camera for your reflective rippling water photos? I was about 6-7 feet above the water surface, and shooting probably at about a 45 degree angle toward the surface of the pond.

I'm intrigued by your Canon tilt-shift lens (Dick gets nervous when I use the word "intrigue." :D). As I mentioned the Canon tilt-shift lenses are quite expensive. Here is a current comparison of prices at the 3 most reliable outlets (http://www.canonrumors.com/price-watch-tilt-shift-lenses/). I own an earlier version of the 24mm (which I bought used over a decade ago) and the 90mm (which I bought new about a decade ago when I got serious about water reflection photos). With the XTi crop factor of 1.6, these lenses are the equivalent of 38mm and 144mm (on a 35mm camera). I used the 24mm primarily for architecture with my Canon film cameras, using the shift feature. It is not nearly as useful on the XTi given the 1.6 crop factor. The tilt feature would be useful for photographing large fields of flowers. It is not as useful for water as I prefer to isolate details.

I have used the shift feature a few times to correct converging parallel lines with architectural details, but I primarily use the 90mm with the tilt feature for water reflections.

In researching the current prices I did notice that they now have a 17mm tilt-shift lens which on the XTi would be an equivalent 27mm on a 35mm camera. For the price of that lens I would be better served buying the current full frame Canon digital SLR. I will have to mull over whether I can use that justification in arguments with myself. I suspect I will still wait until the next generation of full frame digital SLR becomes available and hope for some price breaks on the current model.

I generally only carry the 90mm lens on short hikes with a very secure over the shoulder camera bag. It is not a heavy or fragile lens, just expensive.

Have you used this lens for close-up flower shots? portraits? I have not used the 90mm tilt-shift lens in portraits as I have found 135mm to be a more satisfying focal length. However, I have heard that Annie Liebovitz has used it. Her portraits are often shot with unusual perspectives, for which she uses both the tilt and shift features. However, she uses a wide variety of cameras (mostly medium and 35mm formats), whatever works best for the job at hand.

Nor have I used the 90mm tilt-shift lens as a macro lens, but it should work well as it will focus to 1.6 feet. That is much closer than telephoto zoom lenses, but not as close as dedicated macro lenses.

My methodology for macro is to use the Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html). This is a very good "poor man's solution" to macro. The extension tubes can be used individually or in combination to move any EF mount lens closer to a subject. This is essentially the same way a macro lens works. However, a macro lens can "zoom" any amount of extension to its maximum, whereas with the extension tubes you are forced to use one of 6 discrete amounts of extension from 12mm up to 68mm when using all three tubes. 68mm of extension is more extension than a macro lens can produce, so it is very common for photographers to use such extension tubes with a macro lens to produce even greater degrees of magnification. One unfortunate point is that there are no one extension tubes that can be used with the EF-S mount lenses which are made for exclusive use with the Canon crop bodies such as the XTi (nor to my knowledge for any other camera crop mount). Kenko makes extension tubes for a variety of other camera lens mounts including Nikon.

I have found the extension tubes most useful with telephoto zoom lenses, but they can be used with any EF mount lens. I will need to try the 90mm tilt-shift lens sometime with the extension tubes -- it should work quite well. It will likely be sharper than my less expensive zoom lens. I will try to open up another thread on using extension tubes sometime later. That are some tricks to autofocusing telephoto lenses with extension tubes.

I frequently carry the extension tubes on hikes on which I am carrying a tripod. The depth of field becomes quite narrow in macro photography which makes a tripod essential IMHO. Even the slightest movement trying to handhold a macro photo will throw the focus off. Further I usually need to stop the lens down to small apertures for depth of field; which in turn requires long shutter speeds. A couple examples follow (which I will eventually move to the new thread).

Shot with Canon EF 70-210mm zoom at 200mm with 32mm of extension (the two smaller Kenko tubes), f/29, 1/2 second, ISO 400:
http://inlinethumb63.webshots.com/44030/2856280830102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2856280830102335886slTplB)

Shot with Canon EF 70-210mm zoom at 160mm with 68mm of extension (all 3 Kenko tubes), f/11, 1/25 second, ISO 1600. This is larger than life size. These yellow jackets are tiny:
http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/11659/2924929440102335886S500x500Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2924929440102335886xiGEXp)

[Mark Schaefer]

My son tells me he loves this ''propagation'' ''When a stone is thrown into a still pond,water waves propagate outward-when the water propagates outward from the wave,energy emanates from the disturbance.Mitchasks anyone""Which waves can propagate without a medium? [gam1 did you google to find your answer?!] :D Looncry All forms of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. all light waves, radio waves, microwaves, etc) can propagate in a vacuum (i.e. no medium). These photos did remind me of using wave tanks in high school and college physics labs while studying wave theory. That is why I labeled my album of these photos Ripple Tank Reflections (http://outdoors.webshots.com/album/561386588qnFBfr).

[Mikie]

Mark

I have a question about the Tilt Lens. Years ago, I used tilt lens with my older film cameras. Back then it was the only option. Today with digital cameras, I use the tilt in Photoshop to achieve the same thing. In most cases, I am not that concerned about getting a high quality image as a finished product. In most cases, I use Photoshop to change building structures for painting previews so that artist can determine if they want to paint a view. But, there are cases where I want to use it for a high quality image. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using an optical solution (tilt lens) over digitally altering it?

Here is an example where we change the tilt on porch columns for an oil painting rendering. (Image on the right or bottom has been filtered to make it look like an oil painting. It has not been altered for CA, contrast, lighting, and color correction).

http://www.catskillsupply.com/otherstuff/porch-01.jpg.http://www.catskillsupply.com/otherstuff/porch-02.jpg

Here is a high-quality image, where we didn't use Photoshop to fix the earth curvature (look at lake near the mountains). We did correct the color, contrast, etc in Photoshop. We were afraid to try and fix the curvature. The image was crystal clear and blew up nicely to poster size. Would a tilt-lens be advantageous over photoshop?
http://www.catskillsupply.com/otherstuff/newcomb-01.jpg

[Mark Schaefer]

I have a question about the Tilt Lens. Years ago, I used tilt lens with my older film cameras. Back then it was the only option. Today with digital cameras, I use the tilt in Photoshop to achieve the same thing. In most cases, I am not that concerned about getting a high quality image as a finished product. In most cases, I use Photoshop to change building structures for painting previews so that artist can determine if they want to paint a view. But, there are cases where I want to use it for a high quality image. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using an optical solution (tilt lens) over digitally altering it? Before there was digital/Photoshop correction many photographers tilted their enlarger's easel while printing to do this type of correction.

Correcting converging parallel lines in Photoshop is in most cases much easier than the above darkroom technique, and also than using the shift feature of a tilt-shift lens. I cannot tell you how many times I have overcompensated the lens shift photographing a building from ground level. So rather than a building with the top being narrower than the base I end up with a building that is wider at the top. And the resulting photo looks very unnatural.

As far as loss of quality using Photoshop correction, it is a question of how far out of plumb your parallel lines are. In Photoshop you are stretching/enlarging one side of the image more than the other. You will always lose some detail that could be present if you used a tilt-shift lens. If you have an extreme amount of convergence to correct with Photoshop than you will have noticeably less sharpness on one side of the corrected photo. Small amounts of Photoshop correction may be imperceptible.

Here is a high-quality image, where we didn't use Photoshop to fix the earth curvature (look at lake near the mountains). We did correct the color, contrast, etc in Photoshop. We were afraid to try and fix the curvature. The image was crystal clear and blew up nicely to poster size. Would a tilt-lens be advantageous over photoshop?
http://www.catskillsupply.com/otherstuff/newcomb-01.jpg Are you sure that this is not lens barrel distortion? Or is this perhaps a scan of a warped slide or negative?, although I assume you would have noticed that. It is unusual to see that much of the earth's curvature in a photo, unless it is an aerial photo or perhaps a very wide angle shot from a high building. I am always reminded of some statistics from the Verrazano Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano-Narrows_Bridge#History). The nearly 700 foot towers are 0.8 mile apart. Due to the earth's curvature they are a mere 1.625 inch further apart at the top than at the base. That would be imperceptible in a photo. I will grant that your photo probably has a wider expanse, but I would still not expect the earth's curvature to be noticeable in your photo's expanse.

[looncry]

Mikie: Another ''desktop'' fav.the 'rock' and water pic Looncry

[Mikie]

Are you sure that this is not lens barrel distortion?

You are right. It cannot be earth curvature, so I would have to assume that it is the camera lens or the software of the camera. Another suggestion was that the water was warm and the air was cool, so there might have been distortion for the warm lake. But, it is just a guess. It is the only photo where I have noticed it, and I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. While I would have liked to see the photo without the curvature, but it didn't affect the photo enough for me to change it.

Another ''desktop'' fav.the 'rock' and water pic Looncry

Thanks! I took the picture on a lark, and didn't even think that much about it until I downloaded it to my laptop. Oddly enough, I had another great photo I took that day. Two great photos in one day is unusual.

One good tip on taking good landscape pictures is to make sure that the front, middle, and back of the photo has something that is pleasing to look at. Without the rock, the photo would have been boring.

[Sparky]

I'm not a very good photographer, but I take about 1,000 picutes every hike and every once and a while I get one good one :eek:

I got this one back in October of 2006, on my way up Street and Nye along Heart Lake.

Neil - up for a little "Name that Peak"?