| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2003 09:36:27 PM · #1 |
Hi. I was wondering how you capture a waterfall and get the effect that the water is moving slowly. I tried it with a slow shutter speed and all I got was an overexposed photo. Thank you!!
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=15355
Message edited by author 2003-06-16 21:37:58.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 09:50:01 PM · #2 |
Your on the right track. But you will need to limit the amount of light entering the camera. Use the smallest apature and lowest speed ISO setting as posible. Also, you might have to make sure the flash stays off. The time of day would also be a factor, if it is too bright out. I would try shooting lots of pictures at different settings to get an idea of what works.
I'm still new too, but I think that's about it. Anyone care to add?
Here is my "Waterfall" shot
Happy Shooting!
Message edited by author 2003-06-16 21:55:17.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 09:55:06 PM · #3 |
The obvious answer is to use a smaller aperture. If you already used the smallest aperture that your camera is capable of then you will need to use a Neutral Density Filter or you may be able to get away with using a Polarizer Filter.
By the way I think your shot is fantastic as is, maybe a little levels in PS would make it even better.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 09:56:23 PM · #4 |
If you find you need a longer a shutter speed, a neutral density filter will help... but it looks like your shot is correctly exposed, just the highlights are blown a bit...
if you want to take two exposues, one perfectly exposed but with less of a "fluid motion" look, you can then use photoshop to combine the two images, keeping most of the image posted here, but replacing the blown out portions with the other photo -or- try a faster shutter speed...you may still be able to get a good "fluid motion" effect but not have the blown highlights...
Hope this gets you somewhere,
Dave |
|
|
|
06/16/2003 09:56:59 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
By the way I think your shot is fantastic as is, maybe a little levels in PS would make it even better. |
I think that is not her own picture. I have seen it before in another thread.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:05:53 PM · #6 |
That is not my shot, it is somebody else's. I was just using it as an example.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:10:16 PM · #7 |
Yeah it says right below the picture "BAMartin" so ... I don't think it was intended to come off that way.
Anyways - you can stack filters if you have them (polarizers, warming filters, whatever) to get the effect, or ND as others have said - you can also experiment with what settings produce what effect. I thought "panning" pictures would be best shot at high shutter speeds, but that freezes the action too much and you need something in the middle, like 1/30. :) Just play with it - see what you like and see what works.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:12:30 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
That is not my shot, it is somebody else's. I was just using it as an example. |
In that case, you went beyond the limits of your camera... if you were not on your smallest aperature, first set your camera to the smallest aperature and adjust shutter speed according to meter...
If that doesn't work, then I think you will definately need a neutral density filter that will reduce the light entering the camera. I have an ND8 filter that I hardly use, only used it a couple of times when shooting waterfalls :) |
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:14:06 PM · #9 |
I'm fairly new to photography (just got my digital camera about a week ago) and it was my understanding from the reading I've done that your shutter speed is the best tool for controlling motion. If you wanted to stop the water in its tracks you'd want to use fast shutter speeds. If you wanted to slow the water down and give it that calm look you'd want to slow the shutter speed down.
I just picked up Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" at my library and I must say the book is fantastic. He has a great picture similar to the one you posted here. In his picture he states that he used a shutter speed of 1/4 a second. I believe the aperature would aid you more in depth of field. If your camera has a shutter priority mode you could start with that, and bracket for good exposure. |
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:40:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by narliss:
In his picture he states that he used a shutter speed of 1/4 a second. I believe the aperature would aid you more in depth of field. |
The aperture controls the amount of light entering the camera. This is ever more important the slower the shutter speed. Having a wide open aperture with a 1/4 sec shutter will probably flood the image with over-exposed light.
|
|
|
|
06/16/2003 10:49:18 PM · #11 |
I did this waterfall when the sun was going down (just before dusk) on a cold cloudy winter day. I also stacked the polarizer and ND filter and played with the aperture and shutter speeds. Obviously, a tripod was essential. I like using polarizers to help block some light, because they also help to cut some of the glare from the water, I think.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2003 03:45:46 AM · #12 |
Ok, I love taking photos of waterfalls. They have to be my all time favorite subject. Just something about the rushing water. I have found a couple Neutral Density filters work great. You should get an ND9 if you can find one. I couldn't so I stack a 55mm ND6 and a 58mm ND4 and sometimes a polarizer depending on the light. I stack so much on there cause I like to shoot shots with a couple seconds on the shutter. I was able to shoot 4 seconds in the middle of the day with these two shots.
Waterfall1
and
Flow
This one taken of the lower falls just had my ND6 on there with about a second shutter speed.
LowerFalls |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/07/2025 10:52:21 PM EDT.
