Having finally been gifted with a day of overcast-but-no-rain, I got my long-delayed chance to visit
Twin Falls...all three of them!
No, that's not a typo. When this waterfall on the South Fork Snoqualmie River was first sighted, it was from a trail viewpoint (sadly, with too much intervening vegetation to make a good photograph today) about a half-mile away. From that vantage point, one could see two levels of falls with a pool in-between, so the whole thing became known as "Twin Falls." It was only when a new trail was blazed to the falls themselves that it became clear that there was actually a
third waterfall above the "top" level as seen from a distance. (In fact, survey results indicate that there is probably -- at least -- a
fourth part to "Twin Falls" above that, as yet unreached, and probably unreachable without a major bushwhack effort.) In the meantime, of course, the three parts are known as "Upper Twin Falls," "Middle Twin Falls," and..."Twin Falls." Clear enough for you? :crazy:
I'm covering the three parts of Twin Falls from top to bottom, essentially saving the best for last. Thus, we begin with
Upper Twin Falls:
This would probably be a better photo in the winter or early spring, when there wouldn't be quite so much foliage in the way, and you'd be able to see the bottom of the fall clearly. However, having made the hike of about 1.5 miles (each way) of repeated substantial climbs followed by substantial descents (and vice-versa), I'll leave the possibility of making the same trek in the rain and mud to someone braver and with better insurance (both health and equipment-replacement) than I. ;-)
Back down a series of stairs from Upper Twin Falls, you reach a bridge with a full vantage point of
Middle Twin Falls:
(In case you're wondering, the water really
is that shade of teal-green going over the falls.)
Finally, a short distance after the bridge, you come upon a
long series of downhill stairs (which, of course, means a long series of
uphill stairs later :-( ), leading to an observation deck over
Twin Falls:
What is not easily grasped from this photo (or any other I've seen of this fall) is just how
huge Twin Falls is: 135 feet tall, as opposed to the 45 feet of the upper tier or 30 feet of the middle level. To give you an idea of the size of this waterfall, this photo was taken with my widest-angle lens set at 13mm, and the only way I could get both the top and bottom of the falls in without the graffiti-covered railing of the observation deck obscuring part of the final plunge was to cant the tripod so the two front legs were sticking straight up and braced against the railing, with the camera itself extended out over the rail, pointing slightly downwards. (It wasn't as dangerous to photographer or D-SLR as it sounds.) In any event, when looking at that photo, keep in mind the exaggerated depth and truncated scale from shooting with an extra-wide-angle lens. In reality, I was
much closer to the falls than it appears from the photo, with the top of the falls well
above me, and the bottom far enough down that I had to lean over the rail to see it. Still don't have a sense of its scale? Try this: print out the photo large enough so that it can run from floor to ceiling in your computer room. Stand in front of the image, about six inches away. That's about what it felt like out there on that platform. (If I harp on this way too much, it's because I don't think it's possible for a photo to convey the size and power of this waterfall, even if it does give a sense of its beauty.)
If there was any photographic drawback to these falls, it was that each of them really has only one vantage point and, since none of them really lend themselves to "detail" shots, you're pretty much restricted to one composition (or two, if you shoot horizontal and vertical) per tier. Hopefully, the road to Franklin Falls will
finally be cleared of snow soon, so my next (?) entry may be of a waterfall I can cover from more angles...