Waterfall Prism

Chris' image is clearly not a copy of Marc's image. Note that the prismatic hues fall on different rocks in each photo. But are we supposed to assume that once a photo has been taken of a sight, that any subsequent photos would be considered copies? I certainly hope not.
Chris' work and Marc's work each stands on its own merits. I find them both well taken and interesting.

I love this image - a fantastic shot. The composition is good, the lighting is amazing and it conjures up images of sci-fi. The only thing I would change is just a tad more contrast other than that it is stunning. Truly magical.

Great setup and patience to capture it. There are two topics in the critiques that make me wonder about the critiquers. 1- at some point photoshop crosses the line from enhancement to alteration, changing a capture from a photo to a creation; one you capture and the other is fabricated. 2- the statements about composition convey an idea that the elements of a capture are controllable; again defining the line between a capture and a creation. I would imagine that the lighting was through cracks in the rock in the recess the waterfall was set in which requires the passage of time to alter. The rocks were also unmovable so their 'lines' were 'set in stone'. The blurring of the falls shows a time span that would make the mist disappear thus the light diffraction is seemingly inexplicable without deductive reasoning.
In summary great setup and patience to capture the picture, I just hope the water you were standing in wasn't too cold

I took a look at the link to the photo of the same place by Marc Adamus ( thanks Sheldon ) and I like Marc's interpretation much more. I think interpretation is the key here as Chris's image seems a capture of a phenomenon with no suggestion of a personal touch, by comparison it is stark, and as has been noted, the image has the feel of scientific documentation.
While I understand somewhat JJ's concern I am a bit unclear about what is meant by " copy " I can see the same stones in the same configuration and the light is coming from the same angle since I gather that the light is the point of shooting the location, but do we not see this same sort issue of multiple images from the same basic location with myriad other famous and shot to death landscape locations. Likewise with famous architecture, last weeks photo of the Basilica of San Paulo or a hundred other examples of famous buildings. When photographing an oft photographed subject or location the onus falls on the photographer to make the scene his or her own. Showing up at the right time with a camera is a good start but if that is the whole story the image is destined to become just another shot of the same piece of landscape.

When I first saw our POW, an image of Ramona Falls I had seen over 20 years ago (maybe longer) was what came to mind-although I didn't know this one was from there until I saw Marc's. I lived in Portland for over 20 years and never did go to Ramona falls, one of those photographic meccas in the area. That image that came to mind was by a photographer I knew from Adams' workshops originally, Stu Levy http://www.stulevyphoto.com/?level=album&id=14 and may have well been almost 30 years ago.

When something is photographed a lot, a place or a similar feature, and in a certain way by many that is when I guess I probably use the word predictable or expected and although the images can be beautiful, sometimes they add little or nothing to what has gone before. It is very infrequent that these sorts of images will move to a level of singular beauty and transcend the subject and the other extant images.

No, not at all. One of the skills a photographer needs to learn is how to organize these fixed elements of a scene. We make decisions on where to stand by moving around to achieve the relationship of the elements that fits our vision, we use lenses that allow us to do that and include/exclude the elements we choose, we make decisions about where these elements should be placed within our image, how high or low our viewpoint will be, etc etc. Certainly, there are times where we can't find a way to make a pleasing composition and we can decide to take an image anyway, a record shot. The trick is to realize the difference.

Michael and Gordon: Michael, your understanding of my use of the concept of copying is probably not what I had in mind. What I mean here has more to do with the mindset and overall approach of the photographer. If the approach is to reproduce in concept, method and location a shot one has seen before, this is blatant copying. The image does not have to be identical for it to be a copy. My comment about Chris's other work is based on the fact that Chris clearly has the ability to make unique, interesting, beautiful images that are not copies. That's why this choice is a little disappointing to me.

I think we all copy in some sense but there are degrees of copying. In fact, I find it extremely interesting when a photographer "copies" a location that has been shown to us before but does not copy concept and/or method. That is, shoots a location in a very different way than others have. When someone copies concept, method AND location, though, IMO, we have the least appealing form of landscape photography. Best, JJ

Well yes it's eye grabbing but not for the right reasons. The shot is simply confusing! I congratulate Chris on this shot which me thinks is manipulated with another shot... however...
I am afraid I can be rather old fashioned in image manipulation so please excuse me. Yes we all do it but hey this takes everything away from the real shot.
The falls are lovely but the 'rainbow'....? that is just not right and messes the whole scene up. It's almost as if the falls were not good enough and too boring so spruced it up with some other nonsense.
So much for art.

Nicholas, not every striking or unique photo and not every photo with striking or unique elements is the product of digital manipulation. It's too bad that some folks have gotten to the point where such phenomena are assumed to be impossible and the photo is assumed to be digitally manipulated. We really need to ask the photographer, and the photographer must be honest. Someone asked Chris earlier, and he stated this was a single shot with no photoshop blending or trickery. Don't let the overuse of digital manipulation of others prevent you from seeing and appreciating natural phenomena when someone makes the effort or is fortunate to capture it.

Absolutely beautiful.  You should be very proud of yourself!!

I beleive Chris when he said there is no photoshop to this image, people must understand this phanomona of light when its focuses on rain drops and the sort of effect it is going to produce.

This image is well captured at a very remarkable time as such phanomona wouldn't last long, unless some one dedicate his time to capture such moment, such capture could only be one in a life of a photographer.

May be the elves are so over entelgents to do such pick for a POW, although I am sure they are, may be they are more into given the members n image of great interest to discuss, well they always been so!

Wow. I just realized this image was selected for POTW. I'm honored by its selection, as well as all of your comments. Thank you. This "prism" effect was from light beams filtered through some trees, and into the waterfall's mist. The shadows between the beams are simply shade from the trees' branches. Here are two more images taken during this same session that have been minimally processed with ACR. My PS skills are subpar, and I'm certain these images could be made much better by someone more proficent in PS. Again, thank you all for your comments and constructive criticism.
http://www.vhaudio.com/images/waterfall2.jpg
http://www.vhaudio.com/images/waterfall3.jpg

Congratulations Chris, this photo always did strike me as something quite out of the ordinary. I enjoy infinite pleasure every time I view it. I just wish I had been there. Thanks for the other two versions, and although wonderful captures in their own right I think you posted the best of the three. I just love all the elements and placements in the frame, it feels right and that's that. The rock in the foreground lit up lends so much to the depth. A winner for sure :)

I know it is way late but I had to weigh in. Chris, congratulations on an interesting, balanced and intreging image. I further appreciate your sharing the circumstances surrounding your capture of the image.

I propose considering: Viewing a photograph on a computer monitor generates a different response than the response generated from viewing a printed photograph. I find it intriguing to imagine Waterfall Prism as a framed photograph, perhaps in a gallery, or privately owned. Is not the print still the performance? Chris now has the opportunity to decide upon the medium on which to print. I believe that there are many lovers of art and photography who will enjoy the performance.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ansel_adams.html

Beautiful mood.

Obviously you captured a unique lighting opportunity, and these are often very short lived. Very creative capture and composed really well. Award well deserved!
Best of wishes......... Mike

No matter what you've done on this photo, processed or a natural "one single shot" it's amazing, the light is a magical mystery tour of its own and always enchants human's eye.Great work Chris.