Posts Tagged: Snoqualmie Falls

October 15, 2009 – Snoqualmie Falls

Snoqualmie Falls

Snoqualmie Falls

Thursday, October 15, 2009

http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=910

This isn’t the first picture I’ve posted of Snoqualmie Falls, but it is the most recent. Not the most recent picture of the falls, but the one I’ve posted most recently. Unless you’re reading this sometime after Thursday, October 15, 2009, after I’ve posted another picture of Snoqualmie Falls, because then it won’t be any more.

The last photo I posted from the falls (here: http://picture-of-the-day.com/?p=133 ) was taken during the late summer. Summers are dry here in normal years, and this year was exceptionally so. So at that time, the flow was understandably fairly low. This, however, is what the falls look like in the spring, ripe with snowmelt. I didn’t have time on the day I took this picture, but I would have loved to head down to the bottom to see what they looked like from that vantage point. Maybe next spring I will.

I’m going to start including some of the specs from these pictures down at the bottom, when they are available. I don’t actually keep track of this stuff, but fortunately most of it is in the EXIF data in the image files themselves. How thoughtful. I’ll probably start going back and updating older entries too.

Details: Canon EOS Rebel XT, Tamron 28-300 mm VC lens, 1/200s, f11.0, ISO 100, focal length: 28mm.

Subscribe to the Picture of the Day via: a feed reader (RSS) or email

July 28, 2009 – Snoqualmie Falls

Snoqualmie Falls

Snoqualmie Falls

Tuesday, July 28, 2009.

http://www.davefry.net/rate/index.php?viewimage=949

Alright, here it is then, that picture of Snoqualmie Falls that I’ve been promising for a week now. See? Not a bad picture, but not really worth the hype. Well, the imagined hype, because I was actually the only one talking about it. Whatever.

You probably also noticed that I didn’t post a picture yesterday. I was pretty busy, so I just didn’t get to it until later, and by then I figured I’d just as well wait until today.

So, Snoqualmie Falls. The falls are about 30-45 minutes out of Seattle, right near the town of… umm… Snoqualmie. There’s a super-nice resort hotel, the Salish Lodge, at the top of the falls. I’m sure it’s a great place to stay (one of the movie award ceremonies a year or two back (not the Oscars.. the Golden Globes or something) gave out a stay as part of the goodie bags they gave to everyone), but it adds an interesting challenge for pictures of the falls. Because, the hotel is RIGHT next to the river. From down here at the bottom, obviously it’s not a problem, but for pictures from up top, you either have to suck it up and accept the fact that you’ll have a hotel in your picture, or you’ve got to get pretty creative with the composure. Also a factor is the fact that there is a hydroelectric power plant there, so a couple hundred feet or so off the top of the falls is some related stuff for that. It can also be composed around, but it’s definitely not ideal. (Well, not ideal for picture taking. I do, however, enjoy electricity, so I’m not going to complain.)

There’s a nice overlook at the top of the falls (you’ll probably eventually see a picture or two from up there – maybe not from the overlook exactly, but somewhere nearby), and there’s a half-mile or so trail that leads down to the bottom of the falls. You have to jump a fence (next to a huge sign talking about how you shouldn’t jump the fence) and scramble down a rocky slope to get down to the rocks next to the river, which is where this was taken. I’m not as much of a rebel as I sound though, there were literally hundreds of people down there. Enough so that it was a serious challenge finding a vantage point without any of them in it.

As long as I’m on the subject of photographic challenges around the falls, here’s another one: waterfalls kick up a lot of mist. And mist gets all over your stuff. Including your camera lens. So I would only be able to take one or two pictures before my lens was basically completely covered with little water droplets. I’d then clear the lens, and have to set up all over again, hopefully getting a picture or two snapped before a breeze came up and drenched me. But, those are the lengths I’m willing to go to for the benefit of you, dear reader.

I went back and forth over which picture to post here today. In this one, you can kind of barely see a faint rainbow in front of the falls. That was actually the 2nd rainbow, and there was a much brighter rainbow below it and to the left. (You can see the very beginning of it just above the rock on the left). So I had a couple other pictures that really emphasized the rainbow. But, it wasn’t really in a location that played well with the falls. So it basically turned into two pictures in one: a picture of a waterfall, and a picture of a rainbow. Still interesting, and striking in many ways, but technically, this one is definitely the better picture. Or that’s how my thinking went anyway.

Map: http://bit.ly/39exMG (I used terrain mode instead of satellite for this one, because the satellite image was worthless.)

Notes: Canon EOS Rebel T1i, Tamron 28-300 mm lens. 1/320s, f/16.0, ISO 400. Focal length: 28mm.

Subscribe to the Picture of the Day via: a feed reader (RSS) or email