06.08.2016 Atherton Brook Waterfall

The fungus was nice and so was the s-curve in the brook.  But what I was really looking for was the waterfall.  As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, visiting a familiar place gives one a chance to capture something a little different.  Although I am happy with these images, especially the second which, I am sure, will not repeat itself, there still is an even better image to be made.  That is almost always the feeling I have about an image.  Something can certainly be improved.  Someday I may yet achieve my Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, but until then I keep working to improve my craft.  Of course, it was just a stroke of luck for Adams and not the result of repeated visits, but I think you get my drift.         🙂

This was the most water that I have found in the brook in a long time.

Atherton-Brook-Waterfall-1-060616-960

To give you an idea of the volume of water as well as the sound, here is another short video:

I mentioned the likelihood of the second being never repeated.  Considering who photobombed it, I think that to be true.

Atherton-Brook-with-ET-060616-800As there was no cellular signal in this location, it’s a good thing he did not wish to phone home.  🙂

Advertisements

About Steve Gingold

I am a Nature Photographer with interests in all things related. Water, flowers, insects and fungi are my main interests but I am happy to photograph wildlife and landscapes and all other of Nature's subjects.
This entry was posted in Intimate Landscape, Landscape, Nature Photography, Patterns in Nature, Quabbin, Water, Waterfalls, Western Massachusetts, Western Massachusetts Waterfalls and Cascades and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to 06.08.2016 Atherton Brook Waterfall

  1. There she is again that wonderful waterfall – so beautiful

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Wow. I very much like the second. It took me a while to find E.T. but did, eventually. Nice tones. Nice processing. Nice all around.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. shoreacres says:

    I saw Curious George rather than ET, but now that you mention ET, I can see him, too. But what I really like is the way the collection of slender trees in the first photo echo the thin, vertical water falls: or vice-versa, perhaps.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. In the early 1970s anyone could have ordered an 11 x 14 print of that Ansel Adams photograph for $200. Oh, why didn’t we act?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Haha, it took me a minute, but I got it! It is good to see all that water, isn’t it?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. tomwhelan says:

    Great image, what a beautiful waterfall. Look best in the vertical, imo.
    Did you know how much dodging and burning is involved in a classic Moonrise, Hernandez print? There’s a book that has earlier prints, the differences are surprising. In a “straight” print, the sky is midtone gray and there’s a line of clouds near the moon. Very different look. Adams wasn’t kidding when he wrote that the negative is the score, the print the performance.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I have seen the image in one or more of the retrospectives of his work showing his notations regarding everything he did for that image. I used to use a quote of his regarding how people are so mistaken about the authenticity of his images and that they wouldn’t recognize the print had they been standing beside him as he made his exposure. It’s also why I don’t agree with folks who say they try to make their images look exactly as they were seen…imagined/visualized, yes…but not as seen.

      Like

      • tomwhelan says:

        I have an online book Looking at Ansel Adams by Andrea Stillman, that has a straight print and a series of versions, early and later. I think that for Adams “visualizing” meant imagining what the print would be when you were looking in the ground glass at the scene. Sometimes that meant taking action in the field – using a filter to get the negative right – and sometimes it meant a lot of post-processing work.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Her book is one of those that I was referring to. I agree with your interpretation of his use of “visualizing”…he never said “previsualiziation” – the use of which and attribution to him is a minor irritation for me. He was constantly tinkering with the processing of images throughout his days. Like when we acquire a new version of Photoshop and rework images with our new tools and skills. As an artist I have no doubt that he would have made serious use of Photoshop. And why not. Just getting something as seen in the camera is technical skill but not necessarily artistry, although that can happen on occasion.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s