Ed....there is a lot to like about the photos. I can tell a lot went into their execution. And I will let Nick speak for himself on this, but my suggestions would include the following:Originally Posted by d0051m
1. Both photos may benefit from better framing/definition of your subject (but I agree, good subjects). The way the shots are framed, I am not sure if the subject is the rock or the water. It seems that the "subject" are rocks in the middle of the photos. Yet, the eye is naturally drawn to the water. But in both photos the water is mostly, but not fully captured. This is most obvious in the second photo as my eye continiously wanders with the water off your picture, either up or down. In the first photo, the base of the waterfall is cut off. I would have enjoyed both photos more had a) you focused more on the rocks with less water so the the rocks took up more of the frame (assuming the rocks were your subject) or if you had the water blurred more. b) included the complete waterfall (at which point, the waterfall would be your subject).
2. I wonder about white balance in both photos. In the first, the water itself may be yellow, but looking at the vegetation, I think the photo may be a bit "warm." However, looking at the second photo, the white balance appears to be a little "cool." Maybe only a few hundred degrees kelvin, but a little.
3. The first shot is a little dark, maybe 1-2 stops.
All of these may have been artistic choices on your behalf. There certainly is a bit of an abstract flair to both shots.
As I said before, there is a lot of good in the photos. You acheived excellent blur of the water while maintaining good detail on the land.
But, I am no pro...so take everything with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote