# veil of mist



## squirl033 (Feb 22, 2010)

a portion of one of the waterfalls cascading down from the rocky heights of Big Four Mountain east of Granite Falls... the ice caves are very much in evidence, but the trail and surrounding areas are snow-free. this was taken from the far right side (when facing the mountain) of the talus slope at the base of the mountain face... 5D, 24-135. .8 sec @ f/13...


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

This is photography..??..


----------



## eric-holmes (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> This is photography..??..



Why wouldn't it be? Maybe you could elaborate a little more on your statement.


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

To me, this looks like something shrink wrapped in plastic...

I was just checking out squirl033's photos after he insulted my 1st posting here. Now I'll admit most of his scenic stuff is pretty nice (if that's your thing) but this shot, come on...


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> To me, this looks like something shrink wrapped in plastic...
> 
> I was just checking out squirl033's photos after he insulted my 1st posting here. Now I'll admit most of his scenic stuff is pretty nice (if that's your thing) but this shot, come on...



not trying to be insulting, Trollmongo.. i just don't think "upskirt" photos of your wife bending over a Corvette are either tasteful or appropriate for a forum like this. if you wanna shoot her crotch, and she doesn't mind, that's fine, but this forum really isn't the place for that sort of photos.


----------



## Big (Apr 2, 2010)

squirl033 said:


> but this forum really isn't the place for that sort of photos.


Used to be...


----------



## Big (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> To me, this looks like something shrink wrapped in plastic...
> 
> I was just checking out squirl033's photos after he insulted my 1st posting here. Now I'll admit most of his scenic stuff is pretty nice (if that's your thing) but this shot, come on...


I took a look at your websites and to find out what photography is and ah, it's definitely *cough not cough* what your pictures look like...


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

squirl033 said:


> TrollMongo said:
> 
> 
> > To me, this looks like something shrink wrapped in plastic...
> ...




I have always thought that "photography" included many different genre's..._INCLUDING_ Glamor photography. 
I won't be going into the wedding photos, or kid photos and commenting, because quite frankly I have zero interest in that kind of photography...even things like your scenic shots, which were quite good, I normally would not comment on because I don't shoot that kind of stuff and have almost no interest in doing so. I've been in 48 states and 10 countries and have taken maybe a dozen or so scenic's. 
So, if your so against glamor stuff...why go look at them and shock yourself? 
It does seem that this forum is a bit straight laced...maybe birds and trees are all people here like to shoot...guess I should have looked closer before joining...but then I do enjoy tormenting prudes...:mrgreen:


----------



## Big (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> It does seem that this forum is a bit straight laced...maybe birds and trees are all people here like to shoot....


And dogs...

I'm sure many here can explain better than me but what makes a photo a photo and not a snapshot is based on lighting, composition, subject, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. The important thing is to show the viewer that you took the time to make sure those things were covered when taking the shot. Honestly, things in the people photography section have gotten a little slower since the change...


EDIT: If scenic photography is such a turn off to you then why are you in this section to begin with? :er:


----------



## Moe (Apr 2, 2010)

Staying on topic, I like the photo, but the things that bother me the most are:

1. Blue cast to the water. This should be fairly easy to correct, and I'm sure there are multiple ways to do it.

2. The composition bugs me a bit. The subject is a bit centered. For me, I like to see space for the waterfall to fall into. In your photo, I'd like to see more space on the right side of the photo, and perhaps see a the pool into which the water is flowing, if there was one.

Other than that, it's pretty nice. It seems a little soft. Is this a cropped photo? Or perhaps it was handheld and it's the slow shutter speed that caused the softness. Or, and with me this is always an option, I'm just seeing things.

Ok, I just checked your website, and I don't think I have any right to give you too much advice. I will say, though, this is by far not your strongest work.


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 2, 2010)

I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.

But I have to agree, I don't find anything that really conveys more then a snapshot of a waterfall, with this one.

I miss Washington......


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> I have always thought that "photography" included many different genre's..._INCLUDING_ Glamor photography.
> I won't be going into the wedding photos, or kid photos and commenting, because quite frankly I have zero interest in that kind of photography...even things like your scenic shots, which were quite good, I normally would not comment on because I don't shoot that kind of stuff and have almost no interest in doing so. I've been in 48 states and 10 countries and have taken maybe a dozen or so scenic's.
> So, if your so against glamor stuff...why go look at them and shock yourself?
> It does seem that this forum is a bit straight laced...maybe birds and trees are all people here like to shoot...guess I should have looked closer before joining...but then I do enjoy tormenting prudes...:mrgreen:




believe me, nothing in your collection is shocking... not terribly well done, but not shocking, either. i have nothing against well-done glamor photography, i just don't think these fall into that category. as i said, they're amateurish, and not very flattering to either your wife or the Corvette. with some attention paid to lighting, better poses and angles, and perhaps a different wardrobe (lose the cheap plastic "hooker" heels), you might be able to achieve some nice results. 

if you post pictures on a forum like this, expect them to be critiqued. if you don't like the critiques you get, maybe the problem is your pictures, not the people critiquing them...


----------



## Big (Apr 2, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.
> 
> But I have to agree, I don't find anything that really conveys more then a snapshot of a waterfall, with this one.
> 
> I miss Washington......


The OP's site? I'm hoping you are being sarcastic lol I thought they were really good.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.
> 
> But I have to agree, I don't find anything that really conveys more then a snapshot of a waterfall, with this one.
> 
> I miss Washington......



yeah, this isn't my best work, to be sure. it's part of a waterfall coming down off Big Four Mountain, and i kinda liked the misty, ghostly look to it. but it'll never make it to any of my gallery exhibits, that's for sure...


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 2, 2010)

Big said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I looked through your site and found some really nice stuff.
> ...


?
I said he had some really nice stuff in there. I wasn't saying anything negative.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

Moe said:


> Staying on topic, I like the photo, but the things that bother me the most are:
> 
> 1. Blue cast to the water. This should be fairly easy to correct, and I'm sure there are multiple ways to do it.
> 
> ...




thanks, Moe. yeah, i agree, it's far from my best, but it was the best i got out of a rather unproductive trip to Big Four Mountain. this is a crop from a larger image. the bottom of the falls was just a  jumble of rocks, and the top was so far above that the falls itself was  just a ribbon, but this part of the falls had a ghostly, misty look that appealed to me... shot from a tripod, it's the slow shutter that gives the water that soft, misty look.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...




seems there's some confusion over who's looking at what...


----------



## Big (Apr 2, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...


Oops my bad Dominantly, I was just thrown off by you saying there wasn't anything that was more than a snapshot. Sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

> not very flattering to either your wife or the Corvette. with some  attention paid to lighting, better poses and angles, and perhaps a  different wardrobe (lose the cheap plastic "hooker" heels), you might be  able to achieve some nice results.



Then it seems to be a difference in taste. I like the "Hooker Heels"...I see nothing sexy about a woman in shoes with heels like my old dead grandmother is wearing...that is why pretty much all models, dancers and such wear _HIGH _heels....it also changes how the ladies butt and legs look by about 200%

Perhaps you missed the fact that this shoot was done while we were working on the car...The second was done while cleaning/detailing for a show, the first was done while installing the louvers...a messy job cutting fiberglass.

I agree the lighting needed to be better...the pose is a matter of taste and I like both...same with the wardrobe, we both like what she was wearing and those are the tamer outfits.


----------



## Moe (Apr 2, 2010)

Funny. I bet this is the only waterfall thread that mentions high heels...and not just high heels but _HIGH_ heels and hooker heels.

OP, I know what you mean about unproductive trips. And, going back and looking at the photo, I see the ghostliness you are talking about.


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

erose86 said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Better cut out the beans...that sort of thing isn't very lady like..!!


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

"Perhaps you missed the fact that this shoot was done while we were  working on the car...The second was done while cleaning/detailing for a  show, the first was done while installing the louvers...a messy job  cutting fiberglass."

rather an odd setting to attempt "glamor" photography, then, don't you think? why not wait till the car was done, then do it right, with decent lighting, a better setting, more glamorous wardrobe and poses, and so forth? my main point isn't that i don't like "glamor" photography - it's that these amateurish "upskirt" photos are not very flattering to your wife, and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's what you were after, well, better luck next time.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

Moe said:


> Funny. I bet this is the only waterfall thread that mentions high heels...and not just high heels but _HIGH_ heels and hooker heels.
> 
> OP, I know what you mean about unproductive trips. And, going back and looking at the photo, I see the ghostliness you are talking about.




um... where did the "OP" come from???


----------



## Moe (Apr 2, 2010)

Sorry, too lazy to write squirl033. Stands for Original Poster, the person starting the thread.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

Moe said:


> Sorry, too lazy to write squirl033. Stands for Original Poster, the person starting the thread.



ah... gotcha... thanks!


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

> and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's  what you were after, well, better luck next time.



The point is the shoot was about the work on the car....Like you said you don't like glamor photography so why bother to look and shock yourself...maybe you wish your wife (if you have one) looked as good and wore something other than flat shoes. 
Other than the lighting, I am very happy with those photos...and if I ever decide to shoot scenic stuff, then I'll be listening intently to your critique


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> > and there's really nothing tasteful or glamorous about them. if that's  what you were after, well, better luck next time.
> 
> 
> The point is the shoot was about the work on the car....Like you said you don't like glamor photography so why bother to look and shock yourself...maybe you wish your wife (if you have one) looked as good and wore something other than flat shoes.
> Other than the lighting, I am very happy with those photos...and if I ever decide to shoot scenic stuff, then I'll be listening intently to your critique



if the point of the shoot was the work on the car, why did you pose your wife flashing her crotch at the world, so that her a$$ was the focal point of the picture? nice try, but that dog won't hunt. that shot was simply an amateurish attempt at junior-high erotica. if that's what makes your socks roll up and down, that's fine, i have no problem with it. but don't whine and snivel when i point out that it's tasteless and unflattering to your subject. 

i never said i didn't like glamor photography. just because it's not what i *do*, doesn't mean i don't like it. i just know that photographing people is not my forte - or even my interest - so i have the good sense to leave that sort of thing to people who do it better than i. believe me, your pictures don't shock me. what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 2, 2010)

> what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.



Puts up with it? I guess you've never know any interesting women.
(Hint...All women are exhibitionist...)

She posts those same photos on her two sites...she loves the attention and she sure gets it. 

She is the kind of women you think about when you make love to your wife...in the dark...under the covers. The kind of woman you've never been able to get a date with...


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

TrollMongo said:


> > what does perplex me a bit is why your wife puts up with it.
> 
> 
> She is the kind of women you think about when you make love to your wife...in the dark...under the covers. The kind of woman you've never been able to get a date with...



far from it, actually... but if thinking that makes you feel better about yourself, you just go right ahead...


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 2, 2010)

"Hint...All women are exhibitionist..."

i guess if your sum total experience with women involves strippers, hookers, and other "loose women", you might arrive at that conclusion...


----------



## Sachphotography (Apr 2, 2010)

LOL this is by far the most interesting thread I have read in a long time.  and exhibitionist? All woman are not. LOL It is very sad that you think that low of your wife...


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 3, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> LOL this is by far the most interesting thread I have read in a long time.  and exhibitionist? All woman are not. LOL It is very sad that you think that low of your wife...




Fun thread I'll agree...but it's to bad you don't understand women, or perhaps just have never met any interesting ones....maybe I should have said all women who can be tend to be exhibitionist...the fuggly ones mostly know better, but of course that's no guarantee...


----------



## pbelarge (Apr 3, 2010)

Rocky
It is obvious you know your photography.
This shot though is not easy to figure out. I am not sure if you cropped it or shot it this way, It is so tight that a sense of scale is hard to judge.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 3, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Rocky
> It is obvious you know your photography.
> This shot though is not easy to figure out. I am not sure if you cropped it or shot it this way, It is so tight that a sense of scale is hard to judge.




it's a crop. the actual falls is probably over 200 feet high, but very narrow, and the images i took of the whole falls weren't very interesting. i did like the ghostly look of this part of the falls, though, so i cropped it. as has been mentioned - and i agree - this isn't one of my best shots. it just happened to be one of the most recent i had when i posted it... :er:


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 3, 2010)

erose86 said:


> TrollMongo said:
> 
> 
> > Fun thread I'll agree...but it's to bad you don't understand women, or perhaps just have never met any interesting ones....
> ...



Whats a matter honey...you sound terribly insecure...maybe cause your hubby been wacking off to Eve's photos....:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## TrollMongo (Apr 3, 2010)

> I'd be really curious as to how he would have done that considering I've  had the laptop since last night.  I MUST learn how to access the  internet without a computer since he apparently holds the secret!   ::runs off to ask::



Gee...maybe they have only one computer in PA...

A musician huh...they get all the girls, better stick close to him at his gigs, won't take him long to get tired of the same old church lady style wife (you are probably to  young to remember that character on Saturday Night Live but she looked a lot like you.) 
Has anyone ever heard of him? I mean, can his music be bought or does he just play for birthday parties and such.


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 3, 2010)

erose86 said:


> squirl033- I just looked through your website and your work is magnificent!!!   I have to ask though... in this photo:
> 
> Scenic Splendor - Northwest Natural Imagery
> 
> is the water *really* that blue or did you so that in PP??



thanks! Crater Lake is really that blue. i'd seen photos before i went there, and didn't believe it myself, but it's just shockingly blue... especially on clear blue-sky days... and very clear, as well. there are no streams into or out of the lake. the only changes in the water level are the result of snowmelt or evaporation, and the two seem to equalize pretty well so that the lake stays about the same level. it's also quite deep, over 1,900 feet at its deepest point.


----------



## Big (Apr 3, 2010)

Scenic Splendor - Northwest Natural Imagery

One of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen... nice job Squirl!


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 3, 2010)

Big said:


> Scenic Splendor - Northwest Natural Imagery
> 
> One of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen... nice job Squirl!




thanks, Big.  that's Mt. Shuksan. it's located next to Mt. Baker, just south of the Canadian border, about 2 hours north of where i live. it's just over 9,000 feet high, and is, for obvious reasons, extremely popular with photographers.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm glad to see that this thread has got itself back on some sort of track. I am though hugely disappointed to see that some around here seem to think this is the locker room. Please remember that this forum is aiming to attract a membership from age 13 and upwards and that there are rules of behaviour here that can be found in the FAQ section. I would suggest that there are those who have posted in this thread that need to go and re-familiarise themselves with its contents.

Should the type of lewd comment that has been made above continue, some may well find themselves being shown the door. I would also remind others should you encounter this sort of behaviour, there are two approaches currently favoured in TPF, one is to report the comment in question using this icon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, or place the commenter on ignore, which can be found in that members' profile under the 'User Lists' tab. Taking someone on in public debate is unlikely to end well, so please avoid inflaming the situation.

Thank you for listening


----------



## squirl033 (Apr 3, 2010)

erose86 said:


> squirl033 said:
> 
> 
> > Big said:
> ...




that can be arranged...   it looks really spectacular at 20x30... if you really do want one, PM me...


----------



## Big (Apr 3, 2010)

squirl033 said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > squirl033 said:
> ...


When I get my own place I just might take you up on that...


----------

