What am I doing wrong?

I am using a D200 with a 18-200mm lens. Taking pics of waterfalls I most

frequantly end up with out of foucus backgrounds, white skies, and chromatic

aberations. I think part of my problem is shooting at f22, just trying to get

the silky water. Then again I have shot in the "P" mode and ended up with the

same crap too. At times, the sky will turn out blue and the shots will look

ok, but, that will occur during the whole shoot. However, if one shot has the

white sky, they all will.

 

What the heck am I doing wrong? I was hoping that spending big bucks on the

nikon would give me better shots but they are not much better than the P&S

panasonic that I had prior. Please dont get offended, I know it is me.

 

Any help would be great, once I figure how to post my pics, I will.

 

Thanks,

How are you metering? Meaning, are you spot metering, or matrix metering? The camera could be a little confused. Certain f22 with that lens (I have the exact same combo) can abberate the color a skosh. What ISO are you set to? A little more to go on would be help, and of course some example shots.

Use Aperture priority, a tripod, add a neutral density filter if one is needed to reduce the light. When I do this my shuter speed is somewhere between 1/15 of a sec and one sec. I never have had a problem with my 18-70mm lens on mt d 200. I use matrix metering. Joe Smith

Silky water requires the densest ND filter(s) you can get. Figure you want maybe 1/4 second exposure and a reasonable (not too large, not too small) aperture. If we start with the sunny 16 rule, and ISO 100, you need about 8 stops of ND to get to 1/4 sec at f/5.6, plus a tripod! I've combined the Cokin A154, an ND8, good for 3 stops, with a polarizer to get reasonable settings. You can't do a good job without the filters, unless it's a dark location, or very early/late in the day.

Pop on tripod and use a remote ore cable remote.

Select S mode and choose a shutter speed a few seconds long. That's your only way to get blur I am afraid, try handholding a few seconds, I don't think VR can do that for you. If your camera produce a photograph that is too bright then you need a ND filter so that it blocks light out and you can use a longer camera speed.

 

So get out of P mode.

Not sure what you talking about the sky. If the sky is blue it will be blue, if the sky is white, then it will be white. I understand all you trying to do is get the silky blurry effect of the water. So you will get that, but if the sky is that color, you cannot change the color of the sky. You can use photoshop or you can use a colored grad ND filter so you place the filter so the color is at the sky and leaves the rest of the photo clear (I think that's possible).

 

If the sky is coming out all white b/c you are trying to use a long camera speed to blur the water. Yup. But as you can see too much light is striking your sensor. You need to block the light out with that ND filter so the sky will still be blue (their original color) and the camera is long enof so the water will be a silky blurry effect.

You talked about background blur.

What aperture you are shooting?

Generally wide lens will be better, telephoto has limited depth.

Two things come to mind. In my part of the world, waterfalls are usually in deep shade (canyons). If you're trying to expose for the waterfall in the shade, the sky will be overexposed and thus white. Extremely broad contrast ranges can reveal CA that doesn't otherwise appear.

 

Second, that 'out of focus background' may be motion blur. Are you using a tripod?

It sounds like your issues may be more related to an understanding of photography techniques than with this particular lens and combo. You might consider John Shaw's "Nature Photography Field Guide". It has been a great help to many of us. Best of luck.

OK, I have a pic posted and all the info is under the Tech. heading but I will post here as well.

 

Nikon D200/18-200mm. Shot at 18mm, ISO 100, 3.00, f22. 3D matrix metering and shot on a tripod. VR on lens was turned off. I think it was taken at around 12:00, the sky was very blue. I do not own a remote yet so I took the shot using 5 sec. timer.

 

Thanks for any help.

Given how bright the sky actually is, 3 seconds would certainly be enough to more than blow out that part of the exposure. Only an ND filter would help, there, or using some of the HDR techniques one reads about.

 

On your blurring of the trees against the sky... was there a breeze up on the top of the hill? That's more than enough to get the extremeties of the foliage to blur over a three-second period.

You are right, the shot looks crappy. First of all, the sky is overexposed. There is too much contrast for your camera to take. The simple solution is to leave it out off the frame. The more complicate solution is called HDI and involves mounting too shots together. Secondly, the image is blurred. I suspect motion blur. Did you use the self timer? Or maybe there was wind shaking the tripod. Moreover, it is wiser to use F8 and a ND filter, since F22 starts showing diffraction effects (but that alone would not explain the bluriness of your picture).

There are graduated neutral density filters available (Cokin, for one) that will allow you to give less exposure to the sky than the dark canyon is receiving. They are great for lots of landscape scenarios.

>>OK, I have a pic posted and all the info is under the Tech. heading but I will post here as well.<<

 

I'm sorry, where is the photo?? Tech Heading??

Hey David,

Just click on my name and then open the picture and click details. Sorry if this is not the usual way, new here.

Well I figured out how to get the pic in the thread but had to resize photo again. Hope it helps.

Personally I don't see a blurred background but maybe at a larger image size it's more

obvious.

 

The water here looks silky to me. At least, that's about where I personally would want it. Of

course, it's your vision: perhaps you want more.

 

Some thoughts: the image is not that bad. You're probably getting chromatic aberration at

the top, along the branches, right? The image contrast is very high - from the darkest

tones at the bottom to the bright sky. I'm actually impressed that the camera managed to

not blow out the sky to total white. But the high contrast edges between the tree branches

and the bright sky are a recipe for chromatic aberration. You may have to resort to the

aberration fixing controls in Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, or other raw processors.

 

Secondly, f/22 is a very small aperture for a DX sensor. You will get a somewhat soft image

just due to lens diffraction.

 

Finally, since I can't see the background blur you mention: is it in the trees? Could there

have been a wind moving the leaves slightly?

Essentially the problem is that the background sky is way too bright compared to the main parts of your image. You can use a graduated neutral-density filter that is dark on one end and clear on the other to darken the sky, as it has already been suggested. Another option is to shoot multiple images with different exposures, for the waterall and for the sky respectively and then merge those images together. You can do that manually or use the high dynamic-range (HDR) feature in PhotoShop to achive it.

 

One way or another, the objective is to even out the exposure in the bright and dark areas in your image.

I don't think the fringeing on the leaves is as much chromatic aberrations as it is rim lighting. It appears the shot is almost directly into the sun. There is no color in the canyon because there is no light.

 

It is obviously the wrong time of the day for shooting the falls.

 

Left critique on image.

Take 2 shots and blend in Photoshop if you don't wanna buy filters.

Take the above so the waterfall is great.

Take another so the cam speed is FASTER to the sky is still blue.

 

Blend it in PS. Or use a Graduated ND Filter as one said.

If you want to make photos that are detail dependent, such as this image, you have the wrong lens. One size fits all is an advertising fiction. Using the smallest aperture on any lens other than a lens made to be used at those small apertures (macro lenses), increases softness and chromatic aberrations. It forces the light rays to bend extremely to fit through the small aperture, and colors then focus at different planes, some in front, some on and some behind the CCD, causing "fringing".<p> Also, as has been recommended, try ND filters so that you can use your chosen optics best aperture for the subject at hand, rather than being forced into certain settings by the short comings of your equipment choices. <p>Since you seem to want to understand why your photos look the way they do, don't use Program mode, or <i>any</i> automated setting. And try to gain some emotional distance from the scene you are photographing. Think of the final image when you are composing in the viewfinder... t<div></div>

Its beyond the technical capability of the camera. Yes, the range is larger than pocket cams but its not that huge. Slide film will have the same problem. Photo film will likely as well but it may have more detail but may have side affects if the tech tried to extra info from area, your best bet maybe used b/w film which has the widest range.

 

For the background blur, don't use f/22 as diffraction. If you got a breeze and for 3 seconds the camera is going to record those movements, maybe this will be more evident in the larger zoomed in version. Only real solution to combat it is to shoot in a calm day. Don't print too huge and add sharpening. Some pple may not mind it too much however.

You could save this picture in Photoshop.

Clicked on the sky with magic wand using a setting of 22.

 

Then I click Add, enough times to capture all of it. Then using Layer, new fill layer, with a gradient filter setting (custom) and blue, graduate the blue from darker at the top to almost the original color at the bottom. Adjusting percentages, clicking on reverse to have it darker at the top, etc, you can get a nice effect.

 

But it leaves hard edges around the trees that look un-natural.

 

So clicked on the Healing icon, normal, set it to about 7 pixels.

Captured the bright bushes at the base of the trees. Copied the bush to the blank areas in the trees where the old color was showing through, as they were too small to capture to change to blue. Then, carefully clicked around the hard edges of the trees. This blends the tree color and blue in the sky so they look more natural.

 

Have worked in darkrooms since the 30's. Today I think of Photoshop as my darkroom, and use its features much as I would have. "Burning in areas or holding them back and retouching techiniques or hand coloring photos or other techniques, before we had color. Leaving the major portions of photographs as close to what I was thinking, when taking the original picture.

 

If you havent used Photoshop to do some of these things, this picture is an ideal one to practice with, on a copy of the original. With a few hours of practice, and creative thinking you can have a pleasing result. Then, if its close enough to return, do so, and practice some of the ideas others gave you. Years ago, we spent much more time in a darkroom creating the art we desired from negatives, than we ever spent on the day we clicked the shutter. Sometimes Ive made 30 different prints from the same negative... Today with Photoshop it is cheaper, we dont have to waste a lot of materiel, etc...

 

 

Bob<div></div>

Thank you everyone, I think my problems are being in the right place at the wrong time and the wrong lens. I guess since I like landscapes I should invest in that overpriced 12-24mm. They are even overpriced used! I am sure it would have also helped if the sun were behind me instead of in front. I really do not think a filter would have helped make the sky blue in this case. I am new at all this, well new with a DSLR.

 

Again, Thanks

If there is no blue sky to begin with, a graduated neutral-density filter wouldn't create one for you. (Presumably you could use a blue filter, but it'll turn everything blue.)

 

However, if there is indeed a blue sky but over-exposure turns it into a while, over-exposed area, you can use a gradulated neutral-density filter to block some of the brightness to return the blue sky back into your image.

sorry, but I think that's just a more clever way of doing it wrong. Consider the observation that "<i>With a few hours of practice, and creative thinking you can have a pleasing result</i>" (pleasing to who?)... and recognize that with a few minutes of experimenting in the field under a real blue sky, you can get the image right in camera and save yourself several hours at the computer and get better results. <p>And doing it in this after the fact fashion is only cheaper if you have absolutely nothing else to do with your time besides smooch with your square headed girlfriend (the computer) and someone else pays your bills for you... t