HOME | DD

cthacker — Multnomah Falls Part 2

Published: 2006-07-13 21:48:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 199; Favourites: 5; Downloads: 24
Redirect to original
Description Waterfall: Multnomah Falls (Bottom Half)
Height: 620 feet (Total)
Location: Columbia River Gorge (Oregon)
Date: 7-11-2006
Related content

cthacker - Loaded Down - Color Version

cthacker - The almighty corn field

cthacker - Take a Walk With Me

cthacker - Geode State Park

cthacker - Midwest Central Railroad 05

cthacker - The look

cthacker - Madison, Wisconsin

cthacker - Harvest Sunset 7

cthacker - Star Trek: The Experience

Zaymerax - Roadside stock

Zaymerax - Foggy day stock

da-phil - Surprises 2

sartmanga - Fantasy comic/manga The Twelve

Strifffe - Passion For 3D Models

belyash2 - test empty tier 22

eleutheria-stock - Rocky Landscape 3

virnagray - Stepping in wild territory

GhostlyHallow - Turkey Run Two

A-Separate-Reality - Untitled

WhiteUnicornCrafts - Mossy wall in Guama Canyon

FantasyStock - Rocky Forest Background 24

FicktionPhotography - A Flush of Green

KilikRhydin - A small bridge

Thy-Darkest-Hour - Tunnel 12 Stock 06
Comments: 12

Caramelie [2007-06-12 00:41:15 +0000 UTC]

Ha! Are you kidding! lol I have a pic of these falls too! YAY! hehe I'm always excited to find pictures of the same things I take photos of!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cthacker In reply to Caramelie [2007-06-12 04:23:05 +0000 UTC]

I thought the same thing when I saw yours. I hope to go back some day! oh and Thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Caramelie In reply to cthacker [2007-06-13 22:35:49 +0000 UTC]

hehe! Yeah, do come back sometime!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cthacker In reply to Caramelie [2007-06-14 04:04:54 +0000 UTC]

I will!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Caramelie In reply to cthacker [2007-06-17 06:31:20 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shensey [2006-07-17 06:15:39 +0000 UTC]

I don't think it's out of focus, I think you're photography just pushes the limits of the lens in that Kodak camera. You can see the lack of sharpness in the corners especially, which is a common thing to happen with p/s digital AND film cameras. I wonder what that lens' MTF chart looks like . I'd say skip the rebel, and go for good film equipment. You obviously have an eye, and will be limited by the lenses that Canon offers. If you do get a rebel, I would say invest in Zeiss glass, and a Contax to Canon EF adaptor. (of course the problem with the pixel wells will force you to shoot at f/8-16 most of the time, but since you seem to do mostly landscape, that's where you'd spend most of your time anyhow.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cthacker In reply to shensey [2006-07-17 17:42:44 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for so much input I never thought of my picture quaility that way (Me just pushing the limits) I know I could take much better pictures, I just need the equipment, will see what money I have left for the summer heading into the fall. Thanks again

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

junoknight [2006-07-13 21:52:17 +0000 UTC]

beautiful shot it's just so beautiful.... slightly out of focus, however i luff it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cthacker In reply to junoknight [2006-07-13 22:00:33 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I did the best with my point and shoot camera (Even after it had been dropped)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

junoknight In reply to cthacker [2006-07-13 22:03:32 +0000 UTC]

point and shoot eh? interesting where was this taken?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cthacker In reply to junoknight [2006-07-13 22:15:09 +0000 UTC]

99% of my photo's have been taken with the same kodak point and shoot camera and this was taken Very close to Portland, Oregon about 30 some miles east. (I am saving for the canon digital rebel so I can take even better photo's)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

junoknight In reply to cthacker [2006-07-13 23:46:54 +0000 UTC]

O.o; yeah .... i have a really nice camera but it's older than me O_O

👍: 0 ⏩: 0