CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

I was already at iso 100....would you go lower than that? My Nikon D500 has a couple of Low settings but I never tried them. I am hoping to get back there on Tuesday and will play some more. I do have a CPL filter that I used ...that's the only one I have right now.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

#1 is a flat ass beautiful shot ... nice technique ...

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

Nice set Cindy.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

So my question is: did your shots come out the way that you like? Personally, I like them. A lot! It would seem that Fotoartist prefers a more ethereal look (hence the "artist" part of his moniker). I do myself sometimes, but not always. I would have been very pleased had I taken any of these shots, but that's just me.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thank you so much! Your comment made me smile this morning!

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thank you!

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Yes I do really like how they turned out!.....but I also liked how Fotoartist did some of his waterfalls. Not sure if how he did his will make these waterfalls look better or worse....but it's so much fun trying new techniques to see how they turn out.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Cindy, you said you wanted to get the water to “fog”, by that did you mean for it have a more misty look? If so, as Fotoartist has demonstrated, a longer exposure (not higher shutter), allows for capturing more motion (blurring) and higher volume of water, and even the mist that comes off the falling water, that will give that foggy look.

Stan

MT native Loc: Big Sky Country — Montana

Very nicely captured. Nothing like a Montana waterfall. Keep up the good work.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Great images.....lovely places.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In my humble experience a ND filter works best when it comes to slow down the speed of the water. In such low light levels with an aperture of f16 and assuming the filter factor is about 4-6 stops the results should not be a disappointment.
A circular polarizer can also do a good job although it is only a 2 stops filter factor. That should not be an impediment if using a very slow ISO setting considering the camera in use is capable of such setting.

The polarizer will work but it will never do a better job than a ND filter. Where the polarizer will shine will be in eliminating or reducing the reflections that are usually present on the stones or leaves around the fall.

Of the images you have presented to us you will have a variety of different answers because we are all different and we have different tastes. To my eyes some of those images would benefit from using the portrait format while others will benefit from cropping non desirable surroundings. I prefer No. 2 and I will suggest to correct for a light cyan color cast present in all of them, easily done adding equal parts of red and yellow using the Color Balance of your editor.

vicksart Loc: Novato, CA -earthquake country

Very nice.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Is the subject the water or the waterfall (which includes the details that can be seen under the water)? I agree that if you use too much exposure the subject becomes the water without details, a non-existent surface. I like the restraint on the part of the OP in not depicting a fantasy surface.

alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

Shutter speed for waterfalls should be chosen by what you like and to some extent the waterfall itself. Some people like the ultra-silky look so do I sometimes. Some people like the frozen water look, so do I sometimes. But normally I go for something in between. I use a polarizer and ND filters because I sometimes come across a falls when traveling that I hit at the wrong time of day.

My only caution is that if there is a lot of mist. And I do mean a lot. Faster shutter speeds can be better. Otherwise, you just end up with a gray/white blur. I found that out the hard way. I shoulda chimped a little.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Wonderful set Cindy!