Sorry it took awhile to get back on here. I'm trying to finalize everything for my trip to Australia in 2 weeks and the wife and work seem to have plans for the rest of my time.

"What lens is your new "waterfall" lens?"
- the Nikkor 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 (not the best, but much better than what I was using the first two years. I didn't feel the need to buy a fast lens for all the slowing I do.

" Do you use a polarizer when shooting falls? It has saved more than a few of my files taking the harsh reflective light out of play and taming the DR a tad."
-As I said above, I have the ND4, I did have a circular polarizer for the old lens, but it never seemed to make much of a difference with the glare, didn't allow me to drop low enough on time to not overexpose, and if I stacked it with the ND4, I couldn't use the 18-25ish range due to the edges of the frame getting cut off. (I'll be making a separate filter topic soon since I need to buy a few in the next week or so)


For the image. The rocks/cliff look great, but everything else looks too vibrant to be real, and as a whole looks and feels over-processed. The same with Spartacus's edit. But maybe the majority of people don't see it that way.

I was looking at some Marc Adamus work the other night. A lot of the images are really beautiful, and though it doesn't feel too over over-processed, it still looks like something that I wouldn't be able to see thru my eyes instead of a lens. Something I've always had stuck in my head is, a good image is one that captures the beauty and yet is still true to the subject that other people could go there and see the same for themselves. So am I wrong in that regard? It could be that my approach to processing is just off, and that's why my edits don't produce the better image, and that I actually could come up with something close to Roman or Sparts if I went at it with a different view.