Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
parkway
Page <prev 2 of 2
Jan 26, 2014 15:48:10   #
DaveMM Loc: Port Elizabeth, South Africa
 
parkway wrote:
I have been asked not to use all caps so I will comply.Maybe there is a good reason not to use all caps. I don't know.
Jeep Daddy has given the reason. Sorry I was a bit terse with you, but I do find that ALL CAPS ARE MUCH HARDER TO READ AND I USUALLY DON'T BOTHER WITH THEM.

Reply
Jan 26, 2014 15:53:13   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
DaveMM wrote:
Jeep Daddy has given the reason. Sorry I was a bit terse with you, but I do find that ALL CAPS ARE MUCH HARDER TO READ AND I USUALLY DON'T BOTHER WITH THEM.

WHATDIDYOUSAY?IHADTROUBLEREADINGTHAT. :d

Reply
Jan 26, 2014 21:28:57   #
lacsar Loc: Columbia SC and Newland NC
 
parkway wrote:
Thanks. That will help a lot. I really like the idea of magnafing and making sure that the water falls is in focus.


Do you have pics of Elk Park Falls?

Reply
 
 
Jan 26, 2014 23:00:30   #
parkway Loc: PINEOLA,NC
 
Yes , I have pictures of Elk River Falls near Elk Park. This is Elk River Falls with Cardinal Flower.



Reply
Jan 26, 2014 23:42:44   #
lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
 
photosarah wrote:
I did a day's outing last summer with Experience Seminars, Canon pro's here in the UK. To sum up their advice:

Overcast conditions better than bright sunshine (to prevent burn-out on the water)
Large waterfalls usually work better with high shutter speeds e 1/250th and above, to freeze action - but with very large waterfalls you may need to use speeds of 1/1000 or more to freeze the water.
Smaller waterfalls usually work better with shower speeds eg 1.15th sec and below to give soft effect
(But take photos of the waterfall reversing the above and see which effect you like)
If working with slower shutter speeds and with a tripod, use a spot or partial reading off a mid-tone area and then set up camera accordingly
Consider taking small sections as well as whole waterfall.
Keep an eye out for rainbows and use a polariser to intensify colours
Wide angle lens eg 16-35 mm lens for whole waterfall, or longer lens for smaller sections
Small aperture (i.e. big number) eg. f/22 for depth of field
Up the ISO since waterfalls are usually surrounded by trees and foliage
Tripod and cable release
Polariser filter
Lens hood (to keep lens dry in drifting mist)
Take lens cleaning cloths in case mist still gets on lens
Take care how you change lenses, if you do, because of the mist/spray/damp.

I set my camera to manual focus, focus and then use Live View and magnify 5 or 10 times to make sure I am in focus.

I attach a photo of a waterfall in Yorkshire taken this last summer following the above advice. Settings were:

Aperture Priority
f/29
ISO 100
Lens 24-105mm set at 65mm
2.5 seconds
Tripod/Cable release

Hope some of this might help you.
I did a day's outing last summer with Experience ... (show quote)



Some of this information is fascinating. You, however, did not seem to follow the recommendations. Can you explain the Canon suggestions and why you may have deviated?

Reply
Jan 27, 2014 10:14:13   #
photosarah Loc: East Sussex, UK
 
lightchime wrote:
Some of this information is fascinating. You, however, did not seem to follow the recommendations. Can you explain the Canon suggestions and why you may have deviated?


Hi lightchime. The info from Canon is guidelines, not gospel, and you always have to tailor the basic info to the circumstances, don't you.

It wasn't a sunny day, it was quite overcast. I didn't need to up the ISO because there were not a lot of trees around, the waterfall is quite bright anyway and I thought that with a higher ISO the water would burn out (as it already has on the edges as it tips over the rocks). I didn't use the recommended very wide-angle lens since I decided to take just a section of the waterfall - as you can (or actually, can't!) see there was more of it above - and since I could not get very close to it, using my wide angle lens would have made the waterfall very small. A section of the interesting bit made a better image, I thought. I took it both with a fast shutter speed and a slower one as recommended, but preferred the image with the softer look of the water. I used the recommended small aperture (f/29) which has given good d-o-f and allowed a slower shutter speed. As you see, I used my tripod and cable release for a 2.5 second exposure, and I certainly used manual focus and then Live View to get it as sharp as it is on the rocks. I didn't deviate much from Canon's guidelines, and that day at Ingleton was my first attempt at waterfalls. This picture won best of the evening for a landscape comp at our camera club. Not that I am saying it is marvellous, but it pleases me (and fortunately, also that particular judge!)

Reply
Jan 27, 2014 10:26:12   #
lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
 
photosarah wrote:
Hi lightchime. The info from Canon is guidelines, not gospel, and you always have to tailor the basic info to the circumstances, don't you.

It wasn't a sunny day, it was quite overcast. I didn't need to up the ISO because there were not a lot of trees around, the waterfall is quite bright anyway and I thought that with a higher ISO the water would burn out (as it already has on the edges as it tips over the rocks). I didn't use the recommended very wide-angle lens since I wanted the whole waterfall and I could not get very close, so using my wide angle lens would have made the waterfall very small. I took it both with a fast shutter speed and a slower one as recommended, but preferred the image with the softer look of the water. I used the small aperture (f/29) which has given good d-o-f. As you see, I used my tripod and cable release for a 2.5 second exposure, and I certainly used manual focus and Live View to get it as sharp as it is on the rocks. I didn't deviate much from Canon's guidelines, and that day at Ingleton was my first attempt at waterfalls. This picture won best of the evening for a landscape comp at our camera club. Not that I am saying it is marvellous, but it pleases me (and fortunately, also that particular judge!)
Hi lightchime. The info from Canon is guidelines,... (show quote)




It is a nice image and I did not mean to challenge or critique you in any way. You understand deviating from given formulas. Unfortunately, there appear to be many who do not understand that there are few rules and that they are usually guidelines that need not be followed and should, indeed, be ignored at times.

I just couldn't pass the opportunity of using you as a wonderful example of using a thought process and not relying strictly on a cookbook.

Many thanks.

Reply
 
 
Jan 27, 2014 10:53:13   #
photosarah Loc: East Sussex, UK
 
lightchime wrote:
It is a nice image and I did not mean to challenge or critique you in any way. You understand deviating from given formulas. Unfortunately, there appear to be many who do not understand that there are few rules and that they are usually guidelines that need not be followed and should, indeed, be ignored at times.

I just couldn't pass the opportunity of using you as a wonderful example of using a thought process and not relying strictly on a cookbook.

Many thanks.


Hi again

I didn't take your question as either a challenge or as criticism :o) It was a fair question, and I was glad to explain. I didn't strictly follow the rule-of-thirds either! (Except that I suppose you could say that the photo is divided into thirds horizontally, but I think that is more accidental than deliberate)

Reply
Jan 8, 2021 16:14:07   #
lacsar Loc: Columbia SC and Newland NC
 
parkway wrote:
What ARE THE BEST SETTING TO TAKE PICTURES OF WATER FALLS?


You have some great places to practice. Across from the Ingles in Newland and Elk River Falls.

Reply
Jan 8, 2021 17:31:34   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
lacsar wrote:
You have some great places to practice. Across from the Ingles in Newland and Elk River Falls.


What's the point of dragging up a 7 year old thread? The OP hasn't posted anything since 2014, so he's probably not here any more.

Reply
Jan 8, 2021 22:30:32   #
lacsar Loc: Columbia SC and Newland NC
 
Did it hurt you to read it. It came up on my e-mail from UHH today. That's why, if it's any of your business what I put on here.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.