# Waterfall in Garden



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 29, 2007)

I decided to be a tourist for a day, and went to the Japanese Gardens on Saturday. 'bout the only thing disappointing was that they charged me $2 for bringing a tripod. Oh well, it was worth it.


----------



## The Empress (Oct 29, 2007)

Very nice!!


----------



## doenoe (Oct 29, 2007)

oh, thats groovy. Very nice autumn colors and i love the movement of the leaves in the foreground.


----------



## Antarctican (Oct 29, 2007)

Ooooo, gorgeous!! I was there in mid-September 2006, but the leaves hadn't turned yet.


----------



## kierukei (Oct 29, 2007)

Beautiful colors.
Nice job.


----------



## Buddhabuddha (Oct 29, 2007)

I would say the $2 was worth every penny.


----------



## Becky (Oct 29, 2007)

Stunner, I love it!


----------



## Anita (Oct 29, 2007)

Very beautiful! 

$2 for a tripod??? What do they charge for a monopod $.75?


----------



## Spoe (Oct 29, 2007)

Great shot, looks awesome! :thumbup:


----------



## skieur (Oct 29, 2007)

Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness?  Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant.  A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.

skieur


----------



## Anita (Oct 29, 2007)

And, who are you calling a beginner? You don't know me and how long I have been doing this.

Stupid comment! I suggest yours be removed!


----------



## MarcusM (Oct 29, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness?  Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant.  A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur



hmmm...how can you tell for sure that the shot is blurry and out of focus? I can't say for certain that it is, based on an image that is probably no more than 150-200 pixels across. Not trying to start an argument, I just honestly can't tell for certain from this shot that it is out of focus. Yes, there are spots that don't look sharp, but like I said it is very hard to tell if this is due to the small size or the actual photograph.


----------



## Spoe (Oct 29, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness? Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant. A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur


 
I don't see it as fuzzy or blurred. All I see is a good use of long exposer to show the movment of the leaves/water in the foreground and the waterfall in back.


----------



## AUZambo (Oct 29, 2007)

Anita said:


> Very beautiful!
> 
> $2 for a tripod??? What do they charge for a monopod $.75?



What if you just want to lean against a tree for stabilization??


----------



## m1a1fan (Oct 29, 2007)

Nice capture!  I don't understand why a previous post was saying it's out of focus.  

It looks like there was a ripple on the water causing the floating leaves to blur a bit while the shutter was open.  I think it adds to the overall image quality.  The image has a nice range of colors and the waterfall looks great.

You're right, the $2 for the tripod was worth it.


----------



## hawkeye (Oct 29, 2007)

Anita said:


> Very beautiful!
> 
> $2 for a tripod??? What do they charge for a monopod $.75?



67 cents :mrgreen:


----------



## The Empress (Oct 29, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness? Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant. A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur


 
Not that i want to start an arguement either, but first just because we may be "beginners" on this site doesn't mean that we are beginners to photography.  second, there is no need to be rude about your opinion, you can state it w/ out being a jerk about it. Your post was completely uncalled for!!! Sry Sw1tchFX for doing this in your post! It is still a great pic in my, and obviously other's opinion!!!!


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 30, 2007)

Well, I believe this is HDR with water (and a real one, i.e. one of at least three successive exposures, auto-bracketed), and if a wind was rippling the water, it just CAN NOT have remained in the same place as where it was during the first and where it would be for the third expose, even if those were only fractions of seconds apart. Which - so I think - accounts for the aspect of "blurriness" (motion) in the water at the front, which, so I think personally, gives this photo an extra, something special, something capturing, as I have rarely seen before. So to me, this photo is not just bad quality. To the contrary: it is very well thought out, planned, composed, exposed and merged (I would think). And after all that (so I feel) something was additionally done to it to give it the dreamlike effect it has. 

If the photo author felt that only these intense colours, the high dynamic range and the soft dreaminess represent how he felt when he was in those gardens, then I find it all justified. And I don't see any justification in publicly trampling on a work like this one.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 31, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness?  Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant.  A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur


It's not out of focus, It's just that I did a light USM on it so I wouldn't loose the gaussian blur. 



LaFoto said:


> Well, I believe this is HDR with water (and a real one, i.e. one of at least three successive exposures, auto-bracketed), and if a wind was rippling the water, it just CAN NOT have remained in the same place as where it was during the first and where it would be for the third expose, even if those were only fractions of seconds apart. Which - so I think - accounts for the aspect of "blurriness" (motion) in the water at the front, which, so I think personally, gives this photo an extra, something special, something capturing, as I have rarely seen before. So to me, this photo is not just bad quality. To the contrary: it is very well thought out, planned, composed, exposed and merged (I would think). And after all that (so I feel) something was additionally done to it to give it the dreamlike effect it has.
> 
> If the photo author felt that only these intense colours, the high dynamic range and the soft dreaminess represent how he felt when he was in those gardens, then I find it all justified. And I don't see any justification in publicly trampling on a work like this one.



Exactly right on the ball. I knew what I was going to do before climbing into my car to drive there. 

The foreground texture was completely unintentional and I _was_ going to remove it with another layer that was processed to match, but I liked the smooth texture on the leaves that was created and decided to leave it.


----------



## heip (Oct 31, 2007)

Nice comp, nice colours!!


----------



## Disfunctional (Nov 15, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness? Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant. A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur


 

maybe thats your style of photography... i like photos a lil blurred sometimes it goes good with the photo sometimes it doesnt... this one it look grade A 

if youd throw this pics away your freaking mad...
not everyones style and look of appearance is the same.


----------



## nikonkev (Nov 15, 2007)

Very peaceful autumn shot. Good work!


----------



## NJMAN (Nov 15, 2007)

How did I miss this post and all the drama that came with it?? 

Without reading all the comments, what I see when I look at this photo is some gaussian blur added, which gives it a nice soft tranquil quality, and I also see some saturation increase, which happens a lot when doing HDRs unless you proactively tone it down.  Im not sure if you boosted it during tone mapping or in PS afterward. 

I can also see how the added blur may sort of give the appearance of it being oof, but there is definitely some sharpness in the foliage, so that would rule out any focus issue to me.  

All in all, I think its good.  It has the look of a painting rather than a photo, which I think is appropriate with this sort of composition.  

Nice work.  :thumbup:


----------



## rob91 (Nov 15, 2007)

skieur said:


> Why have the beginners here not noticed that this shot is out-of-focus and fuzzy....a rather major weakness?  Any other "positive" comment is totally irrelevant.  A fuzzy, blurred shot ends up in the garbage of any serious photographer.
> 
> skieur



Spoken like a true philistine.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 16, 2007)

That is so pretty!!


----------



## anuragbhateja (Nov 16, 2007)

Oh my GOD!!!! thts one of the best shots I hve ver seen in my life.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 21, 2007)

lol, thanks for the comments


----------



## Robstar1619 (Dec 21, 2007)

Wow..i like this shot a lot..well done:thumbup:


----------

