BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I just can not seem to get this done correctly. So what is a good place to start with camera settings in attempting to achieve this effect? My results are generally severely overexposed.

Consider shooting in mid day with bright conditions?

Thanks
Bob

ggttc Loc: TN

If you want to do this...try shutter speeds of 1/10, 1/25, 1/30.

At those settings mid day and bright conditions will blow out your shots.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Bob,
This photo was taken with a 1 sec shutter speed.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-352171-1.html

--Bob

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

Searched UHH and found this. Pat
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-82372-1.html

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

How to photograph moving water to get silky smooth water shots -
http://learnbasicphotography.com/how-to-photograph-moving-water-to-get-silky-smooth-water-shots

Amd a couple of articles without using ND filters -
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7326096225/how-to-create-silky-waterfalls

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/704/how-do-they-do-that-silky-smooth-waterfalls-and-streams/

ggttc Loc: TN

I personally dont care for those kind of shots...but that is very good.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Slow speed with aperture/ISO compensation.

There is no secret here.

If there is too much difference in light (contrast) consider shooting raw and use the DR to correct. A ND will not help there.

If you cannot shoot raw (camera limitation) use two to three shots and blend them. I am not alluding to HDR here (I despise that over processed look).

Fuzzycoach Loc: Palm Coast, Florida

Under bright conditions you will need to buy a neutral density filter.....Shooting in the shade or early morning or late evening light you can achieve this fairly easy without any filters.......Here is a early morning shot that is one of my favorites... was shot at sunrise ISO 50, f/20, 1/5 sec

(Download)

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...Consider shooting in mid day with bright conditions?" Bob you may want to rethink this... otherwise you will likely be investing is some pricey neutral density filtration which is totally unnecessary if shooting at dusk or dawn...

ND filters suck (literally) ... You can't focus through them...
They induce horrific color casts that are a bear to correct...
And unless you are using a Pro Level body (with viewfinder shutter) you'll have to block the viewfinder if you're are going to have any hope of continuity...

If I had the time I'd post some results showing same but have clients on my back...
TTYL...

Good luck and shoot at twilight... you love the pastels latent within the dawn or dusk sky... Trust me here... been there done that and twilight is THE way to go for the most effective results with the least cost... except obviously a stable tripod...

Btw... be certain to shoot toward where the sun will rise or it's final position after setting...
This will ensures a symmetrical ethereal glow to the sky and land scape...

Hope this helps... Enjoy!

Edit: I see that Fuzzy and I where both on the same wavelength here... Only he was a tad quicker on the trigger... lol

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thank you very much, ggttc. I appreciate your honesty and the compliment even more so, as a result.
--Bob

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Is this still too slow for you?

P3250490-HDR-Edit by Thomas Dekany, on Flickr

Chefneil

Learning time: You say an ND is not good for this shoot. Why? I have never used one before, frankly I have trouble getting enough light in most of my pics. Having said that, Wouldn't an ND help to stop over exposure in the sky, while allowing the shutter speed to be slow enough to cause blur?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

A ND filter will be stepping down everything then add the potential color shift. If you use a graduated filter (full effect on only half of it with a transition in the middle) you get yourself into a situation where you need a straight separation which happens rarely.

This does mean 'Do not use them' but use with caution. Do not expect instant result w/o trial and error. Experience through experimentation will teach you more than any explanation given on line.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Neil - that guy is NOT the person you want to take suggestions from.

Haydon

In my opinion, the most versatile filter for long exposure waterfall imaging is a polarizer. Polarizers typically reduce 2-3 stops of light which is sufficient for waterfall photos as long as you're aware that the best conditions occur when the sky is either overcast or near sunrise/sunset with no direct lighting. It becomes exponentially more difficult as soon as the sun is introduced because of hot-spots. Polarizers also offer flora colors to saturate more and reduce reflection off the water.

I try to exclude most sky shots with waterfall images because they are often 2-3 stops brighter than the foreground.

I have in a pinch used ND/GND filters in conjunction with a polarizer. If you purchase a better ND filter you shouldn't be subjected to significant color casts until you pass 6 stops of light. I sometimes will use Lee's Little Stopper (6-Stop) and I don't encounter significant colorcasts usually. I can still neutralize much of the color cast by using the "Replace Color" feature in PS or by making adjustments in the white balance.

It really depends on the water flow and the effect you want to create for shutter speed. I've varied SS from 1/30 to 30 seconds before and increased it even further with oceanscapes to give the water a surreal glass-like look. Shoot in live view/tripod/remote trigger if you can. It will help you to compose and see real-time with exposure.

Here are a few examples ranging from F11-F16 and from .8 seconds to 5 second exposures using GND/ND/Polarizers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/haydonlhall/25211576953/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/haydonlhall/14672426046/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/haydonlhall/14476281094/in/dateposted-public/