Cedar Creek Cascades

at the swimming hole.

This shot almost cost me my camera.

I had the camera mounted under the tripod and was trying to get into a better spot when I slipped on the wet rocks (Doc Martins are no good on wet rocks) and very nearly went in the creek, tripod, camera and all.

View all photos taken: Monday, 29th October 2007, This photo: 3:24pm


  • Xenedis said:
    Ouch! Glad you were spared the physical, financial and emotional pain.
  • David de Groot said:
    Quite so! I'm going to have to find better creek walking shoes methinks!
  • bachamp said:
    I love bare feet when climbing on rocks. It helps get the "feel" of the rock. After than Vollies are my second choice. But I have boots for when I go on long walks.

    Was a good shot in the end. What tripod are you using?
  • David de Groot said:
    Yeah bare feet might have been a better option, then I could have stood in the water.

    I've got a Velbon Sherpa 450R with the pan-head that comes with it. Not ideal, but a massive step up from my original dodgy one. The centre column isn't as sturdy as I'd like, and although you can mount the head on the bottom of the column, it'd be nice to have a little more flexibility. But then, at the time I didn't have several hundred dollars to spend on a tripod.
  • bachamp said:
    Yeah, I have noticed that photography is like that, expensive. I'm lucky I dont have a second half deciding what I can buy... I just save up and get it...

    How are you finding the 10-20?, I tossing up between the Canon10-22, 17-40 f/4 and the Sigma 10-20. I will end up getting a 5D and I dont like the Idea of getting a lens that I will not use in the future. But then again, there is a massive difference between 10mm and 17mm and it will be a while before I can stretch to a 5D so I cannot decide...
  • David de Groot said:
    I'm finding the sigma 10-20 a wonderful lens. Good contrast and colour reproduction and a good build quality too. Definitely worth it for the ultra wide angle. The Canon's extra 1/3 stop of light and 2mm on the long end just weren't worth the extra money.

    The 17-40 L is also a damn fine lens, but nowhere near as wide on an APS-C sized sensor as the 10mm is. Given enough money I'd get both. :-)
  • Jack High said:
    Worth it I think despite the peril, which is easy for me to say as it was your peril. I like the way the silkiness extends well beyond the fall of water. Must have been a lovely tranquil spot, with a 5 second exposure you'd expect the rocks to still be sharp but the surrounding foliage is still tack. A really pleasing image, one of my rare favourites.

    Seen in my contacts' photos. (?)
  • Ror said:
    Gorgeous shot David. Glad you made it out ok. Just love the depth of the image and colour balance seems spot on!
  • David de Groot said:
    I have a couple of others from a safer spot before I decided to be more adventurous ;-)
    It was indeed quite still, very overcast, and being in a valley of sorts the light was relatively low, even so I needed my polarizer to cut another couple of stops of light to get a 5 second exposure.

    Thanks :-) I think I came a cropper last time I shot from here too (darn slippery rocks), but last time the camera wasn't in peril.
  • -Bennie- said:
    Fantastic shot Dave.. love the white section in the stream. There is so much to see in this shot, little bits of 'long-exposure' everywhere!

    I'm glad you didn't end up in the drink mate!
  • David de Groot said:
    It is, however, not the shot I wanted to take, but having almost ended up in the drink in an expensive way, I decided it was close enough ;-)
  • looby88 said:
    Lol !!! I shouldn't laugh but I am going too !!! Well that would have made for an interesting insurance claim anyway !! All in the interest of art !
  • David de Groot said:
    :-P I'm sure the insurance company wouldn't have a bar of it.
  • looby88 said:
    thats typical, they take your money with no problem, then getting anything back is the proverbial blood from a stone situation !! I have found several "posts" where cameras have tried swimming and not really taken to it very well. Amazing what a little servicing can do though
  • David de Groot said:
    Hopefully I won't need to find out :)
  • -Gadabout- said:
    With all the electronics in modern cameras water is instant death...and unfortunately I can say this from experience. So very glad to hear that you didn't land in the water.
  • David de Groot said:
    Killed one before eh ? I try to avoid that happening as it's a) expensive and b) embarrassing.
  • -Gadabout- said:
    Yup, it was my very first SLR - a Nikon that ran on film. It hit the water and the red light went on and then it went out forever. I was gutted becasue I lost all the pics on that roll of film ! Would hate to think how many you'd lose on a memory card these days -ouch! Memo to self - do not go near the water.
  • David de Groot said:
    Eeek, not good at all.
  • -Gadabout- said:
    Yeah someone as clumsy and un-co as me shouldn't be allowed near water with a camera!! :P