Blurring water, for example

<p>What is best in your experience? I've tried both.<br>

Changing the shutter speed from the "correct" exposure to blur water (falls).<br>

Or changing both the F stop & shutter speed, to maintain the exposure, while blurring the water with the slower shutter speed.<br>

I use film if you think it makes a difference.<br>

Just wondering,<br>

David</p>

<p>I would think that stopping down and increasing the shutter speed to compensate (to retain the equivalent exposure) would be the way to do it. And use a tripod to make sure the image doesn't blur from camera shake.</p>

<p>If you want maximum depth of field, then blurring motion by decreasing shutter speed and narrowing aperture to match will get that best. Unless you're in need of selective focus there's no good reason to leave F stop unchanged when you slow the shutter, and if you find yourself needing to do so often then perhaps you should find a neutral density filter if you can't find film slow enough. </p>

<p>If you want to have silky water type of photo of the water, then you need<br /> to go to a f-stop 16 or 22 I use the AV sitting on my camera <br /> with attached photo the setting was F-29 @0.5 seconds 23mm ISO 200</p>

<p>and as Matt stated a ND filter will help alot</p><div></div>

<p>It can be tough to do in bright sunlight because you need a long shutter time. As you said, you make up for this by stopping down, and sometimes you don't have enough f/stops to get there. That's why the other responses suggested a Neutral Density filter. Think about the exposure you're going to need and choose your film speed based on where you need to be to control the exposure. </p>

 

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td><a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/EHt67EAMo0Pf6Xz_3AmE2tMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RdzLOxi1KQc/Ty77zes253I/AAAAAAAAF_4/MSm4pHdO1x0/s640/El%2520Yunque%2520waterfall%2520IMGP9966_print.jpg" alt="" width="425" height="640" /></a></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/PuertoRico?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Puerto Rico</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

You offer the wrong choice, David.<br>The right one is between i) using shutterspeeds long enough to blur water and set an aperture small enough to get the correct exposure (no matter what that does to how the image will look),<br> or ii) using shutterspeeds long enough to blur water, set the aperture to create an image that looks the way you want, and use a ND-filter to get at the correct exposure.<br>The latter is of course the most versatile, allowing you the greatest creative freedom. It's up to you to decide whether that would also make it the best choice.

<p>Always shoot for the correct exposure. Since you're using film, I wouldn't use anything higher than ISO 100. ISO 50 or 25 would be even better. I ALWAYS use a polarizer when shooting moving water, which will not only cut the glare, but will hold back another stop or so of light, making it easier to get the slower shutter speed you want. The trick to moving water isn't getting the slowest shutter speed possible, it's getting a shutter speed slow enough to blur the water into a silky look, but not so slow that you loose all detail. A lot of people, when first starting with moving water, want to shoot at 5, 10, or even 30 sec. exposures, when 1/4 sec. is usually a good starting place. You can also use ND filters to slow shutter speed without getting the exposure off, but I think any degradation from a filter would be greater than from diffraction. As I said, I always use a polarizer for its glare reducing qualities, but aside from that filters are a last resort for me.</p><div></div>

<p>The ideal would be to experiment and learn with a digital camera, then use that new expertise with your film camera.</p>

<p>Film or digital, it makes no difference.</p>

<p>If you adjust only the shutter speed from the "correct" value for a properly exposed image, you will end up with a wildly over exposed image. All the light areas will be blown out, and you'll have no detail.</p>

<p>So, you still need the "correct" exposure for everything else in the picture. To blur water for that soft or cottony look, you will want to lengthen the exposure to 1/2 second or perhaps longer. You will quickly find out, though, in the majority of cases, you run out of small f-stops on the lens when you hit f/16 or f/22 or (if you're lucky) f/32 or even smaller.</p>

<p>This is when you need to apply filters! ND (Neutral Density) filters come in a variety of strengths. Polarizers are also good, as they do restrict the light coming in, as well as polarizing the light to eliminate reflections and/or brighten the sky. Often, one would use two or more filters to be able to slow the camera down by enough.</p>

<p>Long exposures like this also mean you need to be able to keep the camera steady. A tripod and cable/electronic release is best, but you could also use a table (if available) and the self-timer on the camera in some circumstances.</p>

<p>One advantage of Digital is the ability to change ISO frame by frame. So I might be out shooting at ISO 400, but come upon a waterfall and shoot it at ISO 100. That means less filtering to get that "soft" look.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>First off any moving water is best shot under bright overcast conditions if you are lucky enough to get light like that. There is almost no magic light at the bottom of a river basin without it. I wouldn't even bother in bright sunlight. Stopping down to F16-22 will slow the shutter speeds down but will also introduce diffraction into the mix. Best using a polarizer or ND filter to cut back the light and slow the shutter speeds down. Tripod is a must. Best speeds are from 1/8 to 1/2 seconds. You can't hand hold at those speeds. </p>

<p>The exposure time also depends on the speed of the flowing water.</p>

<p>Best in my experience is none at all, to me it always looks like a bit of a cheap trick.</p>

<p>+1 Andrew G. It was passé twenty years ago and more.</p>

<p>Always interesting when someone has to be negative when there is no reason to be. I guess andrew and JC have all the right answers and we should listen to them.<br>

Have a great day everyone else,<br>

David</p>

<p>Some good answers were already proffered so there was no need for more ...I see it as not negative but rather a suggestion about a subject to be avoided unless you have a truly creative solution.<br>

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.</p>

<p>All good here & thanks Les. Idiots in all walks of life. I wish him well with his camera phone.</p>

<p>I don't do a lot of landscape photography, but I carry a 10 stop ND in case I come across a scene that make might for a decent water shot. As others have mentioned, the basic recipe is lowest possible ISO, smallest aperture, tripod & ND.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16047067-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks, Ian, looking good. <br>

David</p>

<p>Since before I joined PN I had my work on my websites, so I have not bothered to post it here except for numerous 'explanitary' photos/drawings backing up contributions to threads which do not show up in the galleries here.... Google will lead you to my site.<br>

Certainly you will not find any milky images there :-)</p>