Long Exposure.Waterfall. First Attempt
Feb 9, 2017 15:34:13 #
1 second exposure, G filter, f/32, ISO 100.
--Bob
--Bob
Rloren wrote:
This is my first attempt at long exposure/waterfall. Took multiple shots at different shutter speeds. Do not have a polarizing filter.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
Feb 9, 2017 21:13:19 #
Leitz wrote:
Yours looks natural - I think the OP is looking for that waste-treatment-plant-upstream look!
Thanks!
Ah, I could have done that too - instead of just 14 shots I could have done 28 or more, and added a little orange and purple streaks in post . . .
Feb 9, 2017 21:14:40 #
rmalarz wrote:
Very nice work, Gene, especially the second one.
--Bob
--Bob
Thanks, the first was one of 14 individual shots at 1/25 sec used to create the smart object stack. The second is the merged result of all 14. I guess it was convincing. . .
Feb 9, 2017 21:18:27 #
rmalarz wrote:
1 second exposure, G filter, f/32, ISO 100.
--Bob
--Bob
Love this - so much for DDL ranting about the extreme loss of resolution due to "defraction" at F8 compared to F5.6. Your's is as clear as a bell! And the waterfall looks great.
One more thing about smoothing waterfalls. You will need longer exposures when the waterfalls are further away, and you can get away with shorter exposures when you are closer - to get a similar effect.
Feb 9, 2017 21:29:37 #
rmalarz wrote:
1 second exposure, G filter, f/32, ISO 100.
--Bob
--Bob
This is one from last fall but a single 2 sec exposure, at F13, 45mm F2.8 PC-E, no neutral density - it was overcast, which helps with everything.
Feb 9, 2017 21:33:30 #
Rloren wrote:
Settings were: Aperture f/16, ISO..100, 1/8 second shutter speed. Guessing shutter way too fast. Use a filter to slow it down?
Actually, 1/8 sec is probably about right. It depends on the effect you are looking for. But usually you don't want to completely smooth out the details of the moving water with a very long exposure. I start at 1/10 sec and then adjust up or down to see what looks best.
This photo was taken during last summer's drought in central New York. With very little water, I had to increase the time to make it look like there was more, about 0.6 sec.
Feb 9, 2017 22:18:50 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Take a slow shutter speed photo (1/6 or so) with a filter of the falls on a tripod then go back to 1/1000+ with filter removed to capture the bird or fish for example when the next opportunity comes while in the same frame... you can also pose after shots of people or just about anything with layers when post editing.
If their are trees, leaves or foliage are moving you can use the layers to edit that sharp and remove the blur with the fast shutter speed exposure and mask.
If their are trees, leaves or foliage are moving you can use the layers to edit that sharp and remove the blur with the fast shutter speed exposure and mask.
Feb 9, 2017 22:23:21 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
You absolutely do not want a CPL when photographing moving water. It's the reflections and movement you are after.
That's a creative decision, differs from scene to scene. A CPL can work well on moving water.
Feb 10, 2017 09:18:17 #
doing this type of shot with out a polarizing filter or a ND filter you are going to get blowouts in the sky or other light places like the water. next time leave out all of the sky, if you don't use a filter
Feb 10, 2017 09:49:25 #
Rloren wrote:
This is my first attempt at long exposure/waterfall. Took multiple shots at different shutter speeds. Do not have a polarizing filter.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
Try a night shot. Of course the golden hour is called that fir a reason, but full night is wonderful for waterfalls. If you have a flashlight, you can use a long exposure, then selectively "paint" items (rocks, clifts, plants ect) durning the exposure a d get really wonderful views.
Keep shooting, good luck, and please keep sharing!
Feb 10, 2017 09:55:40 #
Rloren wrote:
This is my first attempt at long exposure/waterfall. Took multiple shots at different shutter speeds. Do not have a polarizing filter.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
It would be better if I did??.. Before and after photos.
Nicely done, especially for a first shot!
Feb 11, 2017 00:08:43 #
It's a personal preference on how you like to see waterfalls shot. I always use a CPL filter anytime I'm around water so that I can control the amount of reflection I want to see. It also acts like a ND filter and saturates colors. However, it's a tough task to shoot a waterfall with a bright sun and no tree cover. An ND filter may be a necessity in those conditions.
Feb 11, 2017 08:04:41 #
This one was done on an overcast day with a polarized filter. Hand held (left tripod in Florida ) at about 1/60th. Shot near Maggie Valley, North Carolina. Being overcast and with the filter helped get that "cotton candy" look on the water.
Feb 11, 2017 10:11:10 #
fotonut wrote:
This one was done on an overcast day with a polarized filter. Hand held (left tripod in Florida ) at about 1/60th. Shot near Maggie Valley, North Carolina. Being overcast and with the filter helped get that "cotton candy" look on the water.
Nice...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.