Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Russell Falls 2.jpg

Russell Falls

Reason: Easily the most notable waterfall in Tasmania. I nominated a different image ages ago but this one is better. It is a default for many people visiting the state, and appears in many tourist documents and so on. I hopped the fence to get a better photo. I can remember swimming in the water here as a child (before the fence).
Articles this image appears in: Russell Falls, Mount Field National Park, List of waterfalls of Australia, Tasmania
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome, but are some leaves from left and right blurred because of water? Brand[t] 11:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The exposure is sort-of long (4 seconds). It was a windy day and the waterfall creates it's own wind also. So the moving man ferns blur. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo. - Darwinek (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm massive on the long exposure... Why that? Why not an incredibly short exposure? Is this method really more encyclopedic for displaying a waterfall? (No denying it's beautiful- it's a lovely picture). J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bother with an ND or anything - too much spray and pretty dark already. I could get it to half a second with higher iso and a lower aperture, but that wouldn't make much difference from a blur perspective and would have a negative impact on image quality.
- On the more general shutter speed question: For waves at the ocean I'd definitely say that a fast shutter speed is most realistic. For waterfalls it is a bit harder to say. File:Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg is a waterfall with a relatively fast shutter speed. In my view it doesn't look more realistic for that reason. You don't see water frozen in mid-air when viewing it in person. I think that the only truly realistic way would be a video, but I don't have a 5Dii or a 7D :). Noodle snacks (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've argued before that while a long exposure doesn't necessarily look the most realistic, it does give you the best sense of the average density of the water flow and as such does impart information that you wouldn't get from a shorter exposure. And it is undeniably more aesthetic than 'frozen water'. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I'm not completely convinced, but I like it enough for a weak support. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - An interesting comparison, and I agree with the point I don't think the quality of File:Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg is up to FPC standards, actually. I might put it up for delisting. I'm undecided on this image, so I'm not going to !vote. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO, either short or long exposure is fine, and this is a good example of a long(ish) one. It's hard to make photos like this come out well, with the massive dynamic range. It looks mildly overexposed to me, but could just be my monitor. Stevage 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The foliage seems to have some kind of HDRI or fill light effect going on. It looks unrealistic, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the picture, yes the plants look a wee bit strange because of the long exposure but it certainly does the water itself justice. Agree with Diliff 100% on the long exposure working better for waterfalls. Silvestra (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The long exposure on the foliage is too distracting. A second faster exposure then merging the two in photoshop to get rid of the blur in the foliage would of made a perfect picture of this waterfall, unfortionately. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wouldn't. I took a 1/4 second exposure (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2896/img1354f.jpg) (ten times quicker) and the ferns are still blurry. The angle is a little different, it is under exposed and no polariser, so it looks fairly different otherwise. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1/4 seccond is still to long to freeze the ferns, I meant you'd take a photo from the tripod to properly blur the water, then take another to properly freeze the foliage then merge the two in Photoshop. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aye, trouble is, to unblur the ferns I'd have to be at ISO 1600 and possibly a different aperture (a no-no for blending). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support technical issues aside (because I have no idea what you lot are talking about) the bluriness of the bushes is only noticable if you are looking for it - the picture is so beautiful and encapsulating you dont tend to look around the picture enough to notice/worry about the ferns... Lovely... Gazhiley (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just drop by here from time to time to look at the pretty pictures, but I have to comment on the caption of this one. No matter what the article Russell Falls says, this waterfall is not "170 million years old"—no river, stream, or waterfall on earth has been around anywhere near that long. It's the rock over which the stream is falling that is hundreds of millions of years old, actually more like 260 million. Deor (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, I questioned it too when I read that. Erosion is a slow process but 170 million years is a long time. The landscape would have been completely different 170 million years ago, creeks would likely have been flowing differently, etc. Niagara Falls is receding at around a foot a year, and prior to hydroelectric works it was over a metre a year. Obviously that's a slightly more powerful stream, but the concept remains the same. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Think I would have preferred perspective correction though, as the falls look a bit peculiar falling at different angles. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's a great image but personally I don't like long exposures for waterfalls. I think they can be potentially misleading to anyone who does not know how the photograph was taken. Guest9999 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Russell Falls 2.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]