Confused? Long exposures not working out for me.
I hope that you are taking a meter reading off the water which could easily be the brightest part of the scene.
I do that in manual mode, compensate the exposure for the bright area and then shoot at a small lens opening to reduce the shutter speed (reciprocity).
I usually use a polarizer filter at maximum polarization for the 2 stops filter factor. That is usually enough for me to have the effect I like but wanting to go to that "silky effect" then a ND filter, like a 4 stops factor is more appropriate.
Begin by taking the meter reading off the water which is easily done using center weighted or spot metering.
SteveC_ wrote:
I have a question that hopefully some of you more advanced photographers can answer/help me out here. I have a Canon T1i and I have been trying to do long exposures on water falls to get that smooth flowing effect and it seems that all I get is white out photo's on anything over 1.5 second. I tried everything, even bracketing exposures on every setting I have but I still get white out effect on any exposure over 1.5 seconds. What am I doing wrong or am I not using the right settings? It's aggravating to spend the amount of time setting up on a tripod and hoping that I can get the shot that I trying for. The lens I'm using is a Canon 18-55mm macro.
Thank you
Steve
I have a question that hopefully some of you more ... (
show quote)
Are you going for something like this or more dramatic. These would have been better with a tripod but you can still get the idea. You don't mention your ISO or F stop. Depending on the amount of light 1.5 seconds is probably too long.
ISO 100, F32, 1/10 sec, 80mm, no filter
(
Download)
ISO 100, F22, 1/10 sec, 50mm, no filter
(
Download)
waegwan wrote:
Are you going for something like this or more dramatic. These would have been better with a tripod but you can still get the idea. You don't mention your ISO or F stop. Depending on the amount of light 1.5 seconds is probably too long.
Very nice - without an ND filter.
Gene51 wrote:
Steve, you can't just change your exposure without changing anything else, and still expect the image to be exposed correctly.
You should be using the camera's lowest ISO, and preferably an Fstop no smaller than F11 - since diffraction will rob sharpness as you make the aperture smaller. No matter what, the exposure settings must be correct.
It sounds as if you have hit the limits of your camera body You can't shoot at a low enough ISO to allow a slower (longer) exposure time. A neutral density filter will block out additional light and provide more flexibility with ISO, and still give you a slow enough shutter speed to get the effect you are after.
I use two ND filters - a 400 and a 32. In dark light, the 32 which cuts light by 5 stops is great. But in bright daylight, even the 400, which lowers your light by a little over 8 fstops, sometimes comes up short. I sometimes put them both on a lens to get the desired effect. Depending on how close you are to the water, you will need anywhere from 6 secs (for a far distance), to 1 sec if you are very close.
Set your camera to spot meter, and let the camera measure your water. Dial in +1 to +2 exposure compensation - and you should be good to go. The water should be bright, but so much that you overexpose it. The rest of the image will be dark, but if you shoot raw (and this is an excellent situation for this) you will have more flexibility raising the darker levels in the image without losing the highlight areas.
Steve, you can't just change your exposure without... (
show quote)
Good advice. I also will use a polarizing filter plus a ND filter to get the effect I want
emerald falls ISO 200 0.6 sec f/11
(
Download)
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
camerapapi wrote:
I hope that you are taking a meter reading off the water which could easily be the brightest part of the scene.
I do that in manual mode, compensate the exposure for the bright area and then shoot at a small lens opening to reduce the shutter speed (reciprocity).
I usually use a polarizer filter at maximum polarization for the 2 stops filter factor. That is usually enough for me to have the effect I like but wanting to go to that "silky effect" then a ND filter, like a 4 stops factor is more appropriate.
Begin by taking the meter reading off the water which is easily done using center weighted or spot metering.
I hope that you are taking a meter reading off the... (
show quote)
That is exactly what I did for the first two of these, except for the small lens opening - I try to keep it at F11 or larger:
For the last one I did not have an ND filter, so I took 25 exposures of 1/25 sec, to give me a total of 1 sec - and combined them into a single smart object in Photoshop, and applied the mean stack mode. The end result is pretty much the same as a 1 sec exposure.
So you don't really need ND filters if all you are after is smooth looking water. Hell, you don't even need a tripod, since PS provides an align images tool. The key, however, is to balance the need for depth of field against making the entire image soft by using too small an aperture. I rarely use F16, and never use F22 or F32 - even though some of my lenses have those apertures.
1/4 sec, F11, ISO 100, 60mm, ND32
(
Download)
30 sec, F11, ISO 100, 200mm ND400
(
Download)
Stack of 25 shots taken at 1/25 sec F11, ISO 100, 116mm
(
Download)
BobR wrote:
Use the lowest ISO setting and stop way down- f22 or more depending on the lens. If that doesnt do it you will need as others have mentioned an ND filter. Ive gotten away without one but only on fairly dark overcast day. Bob
can a polarizing filter be used in conjunction with a small aperture and low ISO to obtain the shot?
[quote=SteveC_]I have a question that hopefully some of you more advanced photographers can answer/help me out here. I have a Canon T1i and I have been trying to do long exposures on water falls to get that smooth flowing effect and it seems that all I get is white out photo's on anything over 1.5 second. I tried everything, even bracketing exposures on every setting I have but I still get white out effect on any exposure over 1.5 seconds. What am I doing wrong or am I not using the right settings? It's aggravating to spend the amount of time setting up on a tripod and hoping that I can get the shot that I trying for.
Set your meter to spot and take a reading now adjust to manual and open up by 1/2 to one stops on aperture. This will give you white water instead of gray water.
machia wrote:
can a polarizing filter be used in conjunction with a small aperture and low ISO to obtain the shot?
Yes but do not go below f/16
machia wrote:
can a polarizing filter be used in conjunction with a small aperture and low ISO to obtain the shot?
Oooooopppps, I see that the question was already addressed.
A lot has has been said about ND filters and they are helpful. My first choice is to use a circular polarizing filter and add ND if needed. Settings in general are low ISO 100-200, f16-f22, shutter speed as desired for effect. Metering is not helpful, this is mostly experimenting for the conditions. After some practice, you will get better at estimating what shutter speed to use. Shoot in "M."
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
mborn wrote:
Yes but do not go below f/16
I would even say F11 if you really care about sharpness, especially with 24 mp cropped sensors and 36 or 50 mp full frame sensors. Diffraction effect starts at F8 already, though it is minor.
Everyone else has said what I would say, so -- having said that -- I'm not saying anything!
Thank you all for your input. I do use an ND4 filter and I have been shooting at ISO 200, which I'll drop down to 100 ISO and give it a shot. I have been shooting at f/22 and my last exposure was at 1/6 sec.
But I'm just not satisfied with the shot. When I see other photo's that look surrealistic and the water looks like smoke flowing that's the look I'm trying to accomplish.
I have edited my photo's in HDR but it just doesn't do the picture justice. Maybe I'm not using the HDR feature correctly. I take a series of three to four shots and then use HDR to bring them together then I have to play around with the settings to get the funkiness out of the picture until it looks like a photograph and not an over/under exposed shot that looks terrible.
What am I missing here? People say that and swear by HDR but I just don't really see what it does besides change the color and the softness/hardness or the strength of the detail in the picture.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.