Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi All,

I'm still really just learning to use my camera but was recently at a small waterfall and wanted to get a couple of delayed Water Motion photos. Problem I had was I could get the water motion effect I wanted to but always over exposed the rest of the photo or could get the exposure correct but never got the motion blur i was looking for. I know this should probably be a simple picture but I can't seem to get it right. Can anyone give me some advice on things i should try or the best method for taking pictures of this nature?

Greatly appreciate any help/advice.

Paul

You need to invest in a Neutral Density filter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter

Tell us a bit more about your setup? If you are using a tripod multiple exposures might work. Blend the different areas together in post. I'm not talking HDR but the use of masks.

You might find this interesting ignore the film part.
http://ftp2.bmtmicro.com/dlc/Extending% ... 0Range.pdf

+1 for the ND filter. Another good way to learn is to attend the waterfalls event(s). Pick up some tips from the regular waterfall shooters.

I'm in agreement with what has already been stated. An ND filter is a great thing to have but there are a couple ways around it if it's not in your budget. The first is go to your spot during twilight hours when the light is low to increase your exposure length.

This was taken around sunset in December in a wooded area without an ND filter:


Grindstone Creek Falls Christmas 2010 by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr

Another trick to get around an ND filter is to stop down the aperture of your lens as much as possible. This can lead to softer images than you want but if it means the difference between getting the shot you want and not a little bit of softness may not be so bad. A neutral density filter is much preferred over this method. That said, I still got the shot below by stopping down to f22 without an ND filter:


Albion Falls, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr

and this shot was taken with a lens that stops down to f45 during the middle of a fall afternoon without an ND filter.


Morningstar Mill in Thorold, Ontario by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr

Once you have figured out how to get motion you're going to want to start playing with the amount of time you expose for. Personally I've found 5-6 seconds creates the most pleasing effects to me but this depends on the amount and type of flow.

Thanks for all the advice. I'll look into the Filter but it may be out of my price range at the current moment. Damn Kitchen Reno.

In the men time I will try and play with some of the suggestions for working without.

ND filters are not the only factor -- time of day, and lighting conditions also play a huge factor! Don't go at high noon on a bright sunny day - you will have to stop down so low, and the results will not really be all that interesting. Go on a nice overcast day or very early morning before the sun rises. Those are the best times to capture waterfalls and shoot this type of subject. I am planning to run another waterfall workshop sometime in the spring coming up.


David

Waterdown Falls by lxdesign, on Flickr

Another thing to do (camera dependant) is to drop your ISO. For example, I shoot with a Nikon D90 and to shoot slower, I will sometimes drop my ISO below 200 to slow down the camera even more. I do have an ND Grad though, so between the Grad and shooting at F22+, it's usually not required.

But just beware that like others have said at f22+ defraction will affect image quality and going to an ISO lower than your cameras base ISO (ie going to 100 or 50 on a Nikon d90 where base ISO is 200) will also degrade image quality.

Depending on your lens filter size you can get a high quality ND filter for $100 or less. I got a kenko brand (same as Hoya) from downtown camera for like $100 a couple of years ago. And that was fora 77mm thread and the top of the line model. For waterfalls I would suggest an ND8.

J.

i thought more stuff will be in focus and sharp when you are using a smaller aperture? is there a cut off somewhere?

Check out the information here - this will explain diffraction and how it relates to aperture size and sensor size, etc.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

One rule I have heard is you will want an exposure at least as slow a 1/15 or 1/8 of a second or slower.

The quick way to find the sharpest setting for your lens is to Google "sweet spot" for the lens you're using. And a +1 for Cambridge in Colour, great articles explaining tech at an appropriate level.

That said, the three pics I posted above are all at the smallest aperture those lenses offer. Yup, they're a little soft at 100% but only the peepers would notice and not at all bad even at decent enlargements. Would I prefer to be at f11 (the sweet spot for the Tokina 11-16 & also the Canon 24-70) while shooting with an ND filter? Of course! Did I have to? Well, I managed to get decent shots without the ND...

I actually completely forgot another option! Using a circular polarizer (CP). While a CP will actually cost more than an ND filter, it will help enhance colors and remove reflections in the water and wet rocks around the waterfall. This is not everyone's preference, but I generally prefer waterfalls taken with a CP. and the added bonus is it also acts like a weak ND filter, giving you 1 to 1.5 stops of light blockage. I can't say anything about most of the photos for certain but I'm almost 100% certain ions Albion falls photo had a CP filter on the lens. Ions am I correct?

I would highly recommend attending ions waterfalls event at the end of april. You will be able to get a lot of hands on help from ions and others.

J.

Nope. I do not own one unfortunately. For that shot the light was low enough that it was not reflecting off the surface of the water too badly. Plus a little push of the blacks and saturation in Lr go a long way to producing a CP look. The only thing that can't be replicated CP wise in post are the reflections as mentioned. That said, your points regarding how it can help are still valid think. And if anyone has a deal on a German B+W 77mm polarizor I'm all ears. Or even better, a Lee Filter kit .

Not everything has to b+w! I use a Hoya pro1 digital (slim mount good for wider angle lenses on dx sensors). Got mine a few years ago at downtown camera for like $150(i think - bad memory) for the 77mm. Definitely should be a cheaper alternative to a b+w, even if not a brass ring!

Geez... it sounds like you guys haven't been to http://maxsaver.net

Unfortunately max saver can't help me cause I'm going Lee when I finally invest in a proper filter kit.

except they barely have any good b+w filters these days. those would be the only ND filters i would bother getting from them and they dont even carry them anymore. so lame

Sounds great! In the meantime I'll see about investing in the filter