some nature photos.

[dakwegmo]

Please tell me what you think of these: (or any of the photos on my site).

http://www.invisiblegreen.com/index.php?showimage=17

http://www.invisiblegreen.com/index.php?showimage=30

http://www.invisiblegreen.com/index.php?showimage=40

I am definitely still learning, but I am continually striving to improve.

[davenewt]

Love the waterfall shot, and without a tripod? You the man! :)

Take it easy,
Dave.

[GeoS]

I cant get you pblog :/ There are some problems :/

[dakwegmo]

The website is working for me. Is anyone else having trouble seeing my photos?

[jkn]

Got a agree with Dave... amazing the no tripod waterfall shot... Was there a convenient tree stump nearby to put the camera on? :-)

[Joe[y]]

connection timed out for me i'm afraid. something is up with your host - i've tried connecting a few times before now without success.

[davenewt]

Working for me folks.

[Joe[y]]

still no luck. your host is blocking certain ISPs?

[dakwegmo]

As it turns out, my host, who happens to be a buddy of mine, took some pretty agressive anti-spam measures and completely blocked a bunch of IP ranges in Europe and Asia. I managed to talk him into unblocking these for http. Let me know if you still have trouble accessing my site.

As for getting the waterfall without a tripod, it was really a lot of luck. I knew I was going to have some trouble getting the exposure just right sans tripod, so I took dozens of shots. All but two of them have obvious camera shake. Of the two, one posted is framed better.

[lopp]

didn't really do much for me i must say. i see the waterfall shot quite a lot on photoblogs, it seems like it's something a lot of photographers try out, why? technically it may be a good thing to achieve, but whether done with or without a tripod still doesn't make the image interesting. i find the images of subjects covered so many times already tiresome, why not photograph something that is a little different. i don't see the benefit of photographing subjects done so many times already, even if it's for practice.

[nephoto]

Have you lost your mind lopp?

1) People try photographing waterfalls this way because they like the way it looks, you photograph misc. objects up close and random buildings on the streets the same way a million other photograhers do that are starting out, all because you like that style, how is what you imitate any different?

2) with or without a tripod may not make it more interesting technically, but I've been stuck in that situation and when you pull it off without one its something you are proud of, and its stated because its a 'blog' not just a photo site.

3) Street and band photography can be found on almost every blog found here, you're not breaking any new ground, so don't try breaking someone else's balls because you don't feel the need to photograph waterfalls for yourself.

[lopp]

Have you lost your mind lopp?

haha. quite possibly.

OK so one persons waterfall is another persons random building, of course i can appreciate a persons motivation to photograph a subject that interests them. my response was meant to get accross my own amazement as to why people choose the waterfall as a subject, as i find it trite.

i don't in any way believe i am breaking new ground with my photography, or intend to project that i am, my work is certainly derivitive, and compared to others i've seen on this forum, not particulary great.

it's a bit of a cop out to say "don't try breaking someone else's balls because you don't feel the need to photograph waterfalls for yourself" - this doesn't facilitate discussion of people's work, admittedly, a critique on the techniques used and encouraging, helpful opinions on what i would have done differently etc would be more helpful, but you can't discourage people expressing their viewpoints towards the subject matter chosen, it's a huge part of what makes an image appealing, technique and ability to use a camera can definatley be secondary to this.

[nephoto]

it's a bit of a cop out to say "don't try breaking someone else's balls because you don't feel the need to photograph waterfalls for yourself" - this doesn't facilitate discussion of people's work, admittedly, a critique on the techniques used and encouraging, helpful opinions on what i would have done differently etc would be more helpful, but you can't discourage people expressing their viewpoints towards the subject matter chosen, it's a huge part of what makes an image appealing, technique and ability to use a camera can definatley be secondary to this.

Well, in all fairness, I was tired last night and I may not have put it in those terms had I just woken up from a good sleep, but at the same time I still stand behind it. If you're saying that I should have given you a helpful critique on how to better express your opinions, well...thats just crazy :) If you wanted me to critique your work, then post it. Also, at the same time, you can't call what I said a cop out when your whole purpose of your first post was to explain you found the subject matter to be "tiresome". Beyond that there was no critique behind anything you said, so maybe offering some opinions on ways to make it more interesting besides saying "photograph something different" might be some advice to take into account for yourself. I don't wish to make this thread into any more of a debate than it already is, so I am just going to leave it at that, I have no problems with bad critiques, on my own work, or anyone else's, provided its backed up with more than just some personal opinion, thats doing nothing but trashing someone else's work for nothing. I'd rather have a bad critique most of the time that tells me how it could be better, than a good critique telling me nothing more than I am awesome. Thats just my 2 cents, I need some breakfast, peace. :)

[lopp]

I have no problems with bad critiques, on my own work, or anyone else's, provided its backed up with more than just some personal opinion

that's what i'm saying, i was stating my personal opinion, and it would have been better if i had combined that with some helpful critique, which i shall endevour to do when commenting on people's images, but i do think personal opinion is important in commenting on things people post up. anyways, i too don't want to make this into something it doesn't need to be.

If you're saying that I should have given you a helpful critique on how to better express your opinions, well...thats just crazy If you wanted me to critique your work, then post it.

sorry, i meant I should have given a more helpful critique on the work posted.

[dakwegmo]

nephoto thanks for the support, I was out of town and did not have internet access for a week, so I could not respond myself.

As for the waterfall photo, I love water, and will continue shooting waterfalls, and fountains, and water in all it's various forms, despite that fact that some people find waterfall photos tiresome. Why? Because I love it, and that's really all that matters. I have seen photos that are technically superior, but lack any real depth, because it is obvious the photographer was doing it to get paid, or whatever, and I have seen photos that were technically weak, but worked because of the passion the photographer clearly had for his subject. I think many of my own photos, in fact, fall into one of these two categories.

Questioning a subject choice is a perfectly valid critique/criticism, but once the reason for the subject choice has been establshed then there has to be more substance to the critique to help neophytes learn and become better.

One last point about waterfalls: shooting them has really helped me to learn what effect shutter speed and aperture settings have on the final image.