There was a hiatus yes, but before and after that there's about 300 photos I've taken, but never scanned/processed/tweaked/uploaded/etc. I'm going to start where I left off here at Usefilm, which was last summer. This was taken in August 2004, on my trip to northern BC.
Bijoux Falls, in the Rocky Mountain Pine Pass, has always been a traditional rest stop for family road trips. It's almost always cold and dark in there, but the falls are so purdy. This is the first time I tried to photograph them, and I found it difficult to get a good angle (especially now they've been fenced off to dissuade litigious tourists). There's a lot of foreground here - does it drive you crazy, or is it only mildly annoying?
Are those the only two options - drives me crazy or mildly annoying? :) Actually, I'm with Kim on this - I like the foreground! Without it I think the downward movement throughout the image would end too abruptly - this gives something for the eye to explore in a more leisurely manner after falling with the water. Beautifully done 'soft water' with the slow shutter! The colors could stand a touch more 'pop' maybe, but a wonderful shot!
What surprised me at the first glance was how there is no water flowing down - of course it continuing with its progression off to the left but that was my reaction. While I sympathize with Kim about how the foreground puts the viewer in the image, I think a little less foreground would be a good alternative. The greens in this image does not do much for me so I offer an alternative b/w version which I selected based on trying to emphasize the contrast in the waterfall.
A stunning waterfall! I like the amount of foreground as it makes me feel like I am there, so close to these roaring falls. It almost gives me a sense of scale, although put a person in there and I would probably be surprised at how wrong I was! But it gives a perceived notion of scale, other than just having the water. Great use of slow shutter speed to get the ribbons of water.
0 
{K:164501} 9/17/2005