Fotoartist wrote:
Lower shutter speeds, lower ISOs, plus higher F stops.
Sometimes you can use a polarizer to lower shutter speed or a Neutral density filter too.
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.
Fotoartist wrote:
Glad you asked. My first waterfall shot was a 3 seconds exposure. A little more than I had wished for but judging from the back of my camera it supplied enough water to make the picture interesting so I went with it. Shot at ISO 200, f 16. As you can see I could have increased the water flow by going to f 22 and a lower ISO but chose not to as even though there was not that much water I was losing too much texture in it.
My second waterfall shot was of a smaller falls that was flowing more strongly and visibly so I had to adjust the F stop and shutter speed to not lose texture in the water. This one was shot at about 1 second shutter speed. The size of the waterfall and amount of water showing and flowing are the main determinates for me. And, as is always the case, don't blow out detail in the whites. I push the boundary as far as I can by checking the LCD image and checking the Histogram.
Glad you asked. My first waterfall shot was a 3 se... (
show quote)
#1 is a flat ass beautiful shot ... nice technique ...
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.
Dr.Nikon wrote:
#1 is a flat ass beautiful shot ... nice technique ...
Thank you so much! Your comment made me smile this morning!
cameraf4 wrote:
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.
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.
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
Very nicely captured. Nothing like a Montana waterfall. Keep up the good work.
Great images.....lovely places.
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.
Fotoartist wrote:
In the last three the Shutter speed is too high. Decreasing it will increase the volume of water in the picture strengthening the subject (which is the water after all) and the composition.
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.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.