Your reference to this photo on your POW photo brought me here again. Thanks. Of your portfolio this was my wife's top pick. She loved it. I share her sediments. An excellent photo showing you are a true master. Great work.

Using my "gasp out loud" style of measuring beauty, this is it.... I truly am awed by this wonderful photo and think it should have been the POW... (Note after the fact... I was reading your comments on other photos and your response to comments on your POW and clicked on your link to your favortie photo...was I amazed to find that it opened up to this shot...it was also my favorite -- immediately without hesitation when I went to your portfolio...)

I will say that water shot at a slow shutter speed is always a winner (at least most of the time), so this shot is nice. The one thing I noticed was how it is centered and streams down the center of this vertical composition. I found this made the picture a bit on the boring side. The scene is a serene one, but it's not a particularly spectacular photograph

What is so special about this picture? It is nice but it is one of a million waterfall shuts with a long shutter speed. Nothing special.

I agree with Petar. It's a technically good shot, but not very unique and too static for me. Perhaps a shorter shutter speed of 1/2 to 1/4 of a second might have been more interesting, or perhaps a B/W study. I also have to (once again) critcize the use of Velvia since I fail to see the artistic justification for the cellophane like greens and zero shadow detail.

Since this is one of my personal favorite pictures, I have to defend it. <p> First off, it's not a waterfall; it is a small run off from the rain the night before. It's only about 4-feet tall, you can tell from the objects in the picture. Unlike most waterfall images this one has depth, which is accented by the 3 levels of cascades. It is also unique in how the cascades increase proportionally in size. <p> I fidgeted with the composition and focal lengths for nearly an hour before choosing this one. I knew it did not conform to a lot of photographic and artistic rules but it worked for me. <p> I fail to see how a 1/2 or 1/4 sec exposure would improve this image. As far as I'm concern there is no effective difference between 2 sec and 2 minutes. It was shot at f22 because that provided the depth that I needed. The 4-second exposure was only a byproduct of that. <p> Sure it would be different (interesting) as B&W but that argument can be made of inferred, C41, or palladium. The film choice is purely personal, I choose Velvia for the same reasons that other photographers choose Velvia, Kodakchrome, HP5, or any other film. It is personal and subjective. I favor the cellophane like greens of Velvia and dislike the jellybean like pallet of E100VS or the flatness of Afgapan. Again, purely personal. However, early spring in the Pacific Northwest the moss glow like Kryptonite, I feel the only film that can do it justice is Velvia.

Great compisition, and overall picture is superb. I love how the moss covers the rocks and then there is a flow of water that has the irristible painted look. Did you possibly get a shot of the same picture with a fast shutter speed?

Great shot. I like the colors.

The depth is nice, but the green is lurid. Put it in a box for a few years and see if it is still appealing then.

I am from the Pacific Northwest and Kiet's shot does do justice to the intense green of the moss in spring. Sure Velvia does punch up the color a little bit, but the moss truly does look like it does in this photo. Nice work!

Great picture. Maybe others are writing that is not very unique or clasical shot. Complain about Velvia (don't know why)I think it's great film. Like you wrote it's all personal photographer choice. Big BRAVO for defending your picture. Jan

Normally, I agreed with Mr. Scott Eaton's advices on films. However, with this picture, I would have to totally disagree with his comments. This is a wonderful shot all around!

To Petar- Let's see if you can compose and shoot a picture like this one!

On the comment about what it will look like in a few years. My shots on the original Velvia in 35,120, and 4x5, which are always lit on a window box, are still as beautiful and vivid as when first processed over 10 years ago. I like the shot. Nothing here says it is unique nor special. It is a nice shot of a small cascade of water. Being one of millions doesn't lessen the fact that it is a beautiful image. Nice shooting. And 8x10 no less. James

Beautiful photograph.

OK, OK, so maybe it's not an "original" idea to shoot a waterfall (runoff or not, it's still a waterfall however temporary), neither is shooting scenics or animals but it still works for the likes of George Lepp and Art Wolfe. This is a GREAT shot, like most of the other officially published waterfall shots. It's more subtle than the shots of Snake River, but the reverse "S" composition IS there, and the sense of depth is great. Shooting at 1/4 or 1/2 sec would have lost the soft effect in the water and the depth of field. Velvia: Personally, I find it too contrasty but this scene may have needed it. It would be interesting to see it shot with a lower contrast film Aesthetics: 8 Originality: 6 (who cares!)

Geeze. Nice shot.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the questions of subject matter, film choice, etc... You, as the artist, have moved me, as the observer. Isn't that what it is all about - producing a piece of work that you are proud of and what envokes the interest of others??!! Well done - I can only hope I produce such work!!

Regardless of its subject matter, this is a well-executed photograph. Good work.

Simply beautiful, although such a scene has been shot countless times.

I haven't seen this waterfall before and I bet you haven't either.

I don't think it is fair to criticise it as being "just another waterfall shot..." it's a good shot of a nice scene.

my $0.02

SK