Gunlock Falls

[mattandersao]

44453

Being a teacher at a middle school, May is by far the hardest month of school. Especially the last week! By this point the students energy level climaxes and the teachers energy level bottoms out. Being near the limit of sanity I knew I needed to get out even if it was something short. After reading that the falls were flowing at Gunlock I decided this would be just the short drive/hike combination I needed. The falls can be seen from the road but to truly enjoy them and see the size/power there is a short 10 minute hike with some very minor scrambling...Ok I made it a little more interesting and took the harder route but still pretty simple stuff
44458

44457

44456

44455

44454

[Sombeech]

Awesome shots

[blueeyes]

In person it is mesmerizing!

[dbaxter]

We went up there yesterday as well. Nice shots!

[tanya]

:eek2::cool2:

nice

[gnwatts]

I think the images are great, as far as I can tell, especially the first one. Seeing how this is the "Dark room", I will give you my constructive criticism. I would like to see the images without all of the post production/HDR/saturation software crap. From what I can see, their are some beautiful images hidden underneath all of the corrections you made, and I think the images are strong enough to hold up on their own without the corrections.
You made something beautiful into something kind of scary.

[ibenick]

So cool. :cool2:

[mattandersao]

you made, and I think the images are strong enough to hold up on their own without the corrections. You made something beautiful into something kind of scary.

LOL- I never mind criticism and I agree, some possibly looked better without processing. My biggest problem with the pre processed pictures, or originals, the gray clouds were too bright and were overexposed. I could have cropped the sky out but... by processing them you can actually see what I was looking at! I will post some of the no processing later today and then I guess we can compare the two.

[oldno7]

Matt
I think post processing is good, these are just slightly overdone. Theres other ways to bring back blown out clouds or skies than HDR.

[ibenick]

Matt
I think post processing is good, these are just slightly overdone. Theres other ways to bring back blown out clouds or skies than HDR.

I agree. I've been steering away from HDR in general lately. Shooting in RAW and using highlights/shadows adjustments and then compensating with some contrast, overlays and multiplying brushes in Aperture 3 works pretty good for me. Or still do your bracketing but then layer a couple images in PS. I've just found it increasingly difficult to process HDR to the point that I'm happy with it. Still bracketing things about as much though.

[mattandersao]

I agree. I've been steering away from HDR in general lately. Shooting in RAW and using highlights/shadows adjustments and then compensating with some contrast, overlays and multiplying brushes in Aperture 3 works pretty good for me. Or still do your bracketing but then layer a couple images in PS. I've just found it increasingly difficult to process HDR to the point that I'm happy with it. Still bracketing things about as much though.

The HDR is just so easy, and I am lazy! Thanks for the constructive criticism though! Your ideas were helpful. I will admit I am a rookie when it comes to photography and software this helps me with some starting places!

[Deadeye008]

Very cool :cool2:

[gnwatts]

The WB has gotten crazy on you, which is a problem sometimes with HDR. Try just using the curve adjustments in PS (if that is what you are using), not the light and dark slide bars. If you take your time i bet you can get the highs down. I have set up my camera for no extra saturation or contrast, and use the RAW shot to adjust in Aperture or PS. I am not worried about getting the killer initial RAW file, as they very adjustable later. Try under exposing a little, as it is easier to bring the shadows up than to bring the highs down.
A question: Is that really what you were seeing when you tripped the shutter?
We can't duplicate in a camera what we see with our eyes, obviously, but we can try to express what we feel when we release the shutter. And if you exposed for the red rocks and water and not the sky, then, you have a problem. If you are happy and satisfied with the way they look, then ok then. But I think your great shots could become spectacular with appropriate adjustments.

[mattandersao]

The WB has gotten crazy on you, which is a problem sometimes with HDR. Try just using the curve adjustments in PS (if that is what you are using), not the light and dark slide bars. If you take your time i bet you can get the highs down. I have set up my camera for no extra saturation or contrast, and use the RAW shot to adjust in Aperture or PS. I am not worried about getting the killer initial RAW file, as they very adjustable later. Try under exposing a little, as it is easier to bring the shadows up than to bring the highs down.
A rhetorical question: Is that really what you were seeing when you tripped the shutter?
We can't duplicate in a camera what we see with our eyes, obviously, but we can try to express what we feel when we release the shutter. And if you exposed for the red rocks and water and not the sky, then, you have a problem. If you are happy and satisfied with the way they look, then ok then. But I think your great shots could become spectacular with appropriate adjustments.

Thanks! Good suggestions!!!

[accadacca]

This report is full of win. Looking forward to seeing more photos. :popcorn:

[mattandersao]

This report is full of win. Looking forward to seeing more photos. :popcorn:

Now I have to go legally:2thumbs: download an updated photoshop torrent :angryfire:, and process some pics with the suggestions that have been made before I can post more pics! I will post some un-doctored pictures today!

[ibenick]

Do you use a Mac or PC, Matt?

[gnwatts]

I will post some un-doctored pictures today!

Doctoring is ok, just no too much. :nono:

[mattandersao]

Do you use a Mac or PC, Matt?

Unfortunately PC...Thinking about buying macbook (I saw you are selling your old one how does that work for you with photoshop and other such programs?)

[ibenick]

I love it but I've been a Mac guy since day one, my family owned and operated Utah's first and only Apple dealership for about 20 years when I was growing up, so I might be biased. I have to do a bit of photography work for my job and I'm stuck using a PC for it, not a fan. The reason I asked was because I was going to suggest you try Aperture out if you're on a mac. It's a really powerful photo management and editing tool, I rarely have to use Photoshop and when I do use outside programs its usually in the form of a plugin so that I still don't have to leave Aperture. My old MacBook was starting to struggle under the weight of 25MB RAW files and a 500GB+ library but the new 3.4GHz quad core i7 iMac is rocking it. As far as Photoshop, Photomatix, etc, never had any problems, pretty much exactly the same on a Mac or PC.

[gnwatts]

X2 on Aperture. Very intuitive software, and affordable.

[mattandersao]

HDR First 44483


Not processed second
44482

I see how the first looks overdone so I need to figure out a way to tone it down a bit!

[mattandersao]

Lynda.com photoshop Landscape tutorial is this a good one? Or...? Any ideas?

[oldno7]

Hard to adjust a jpeg, I used your small file and ran it through LR3 and Elements.
Not a great edit, but the sky was coming back from the original blown sky.
I usually shoot in camera RAW to get the largest file to begin working in post.

[gnwatts]

First, if you are serious about your images, get some monitor calibration software. I use Spyder3 Elite, it is expensive but now I know that my monitor is adjusted. Like oldno7 said you need to use your RAW shot for adjustment. Buy Aperture. It is cheap, effective and simple to use. Use these images to practice in Aperture, don't stop until you have the light levels like you want. Try lowering the exposure first to bring the sky down (instead of using the "highlights" bar) then use the "shadows" adjustment bar to bring the shadows up to where you want them. Then play with the WB and saturation levels until the colors look good. Go easy on the "red", as it is too easy to jack it up to make it look like "Utah", but in the end it tends to make it look like "Mars"! The adjusted image above lost all of it's blue when the highs were brought down. Give it a little blue back, it will give the clouds some life. Remember, the scene is illuminated with blue light from the sky, and that can be lost through adjusting highs and lows. Above all, is the adjusted image match what you saw through the view finder when you made the image? Have fun!

[Sombeech]

Bump

Hey so what's the average time of year for the falls to have water running? Is late April still too early?

Is the current reservoir water line height usually the best indicator that the waterfall is running? And what's a reliable website for this data?

[rockgremlin]

Bump

Hey so what's the average time of year for the falls to have water running? Is late April still too early?

Is the current reservoir water line height usually the best indicator that the waterfall is running? And what's a reliable website for this data?

I drove past Gunlock falls this past weekend. The reservoir is still too low. That might change with additional Spring runoff, although it looked like it had a ways to go to get to waterfall capacity.

[jman]

So, I don't trust the Utah State Park data to be accurate. Gunlock State Park says the water level is "very low", whatever that means. In Jan 2017 the water volume was at 4576. Now, in March it is above 6480 volume. It holds up to 10,800-acre feet. We just need 4000+ acre feet to go. And with the additional runnoff in April, May, and June in the higher-level mountains, it *could* reach capacity.

This is the website you should bookmark: https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/webmap/index.html#elements=R&networks=!&states=!&counties=!&hucs=&minElevation=&maxElevation=&elementSelectType=all&activeOnly=true&hucLabels=false&stationLabels=&overlays=&hucOverlays=&mode=stations&openSections=dataElement,parameter,date,elements,l ocation,networks&controlsOpen=true&popup=09UTGUNL:UT:BOR&base=esriNgwm&lat=37.792&lon=-112.901&zoom=8&dataElement=PREC&parameter=PCTAVG&frequency=DAILY&duration=null&customDuration=&dayPart=E&year=2017&month=3&day=18&monthPart=E

It took a bit of time to discover this website, but it is very helpful. When you click on it, it will highlight Gunlock Reservoir automatically, but you can move around and check out the other reservoir levels too.
So when you click on Gunlock, I click on "water year chart" and customize the time on it just so I can see trends. So in order for the waterfalls to flow, it needs to be slightly above the 10,000 line.


Below is a screenshot from April 2006 (when it overflowed for a good portion of the year) until March 2017. Just so you can see the trend. That low mark in 2009 is when they drained it completely.


86127

[Sombeech]

Thanks fellas

[jman]

I talked to a ranger today and he said that the lake is 3-5" from over-spilling. :2thumbs: Impressive, considering it was nearly empty back in November.

Who knows what the next couple of weeks holds, especially if it rains down there... I