I know that the shutter speed used on waterfalls is a matter of personal taste and the only thing I can do is experiment. I have also read other threads on this topic, including this good one on the use of ND filters (particularly Stephen Hinch's comments): http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg? msg_id=004vjy&unified_p=1 But I am looking for a general guideline of where to start my exposures. Last weekend, I took some photos of my favorite stream and its waterfalls. The photos varied from 17-35mm taken from f/8 @ 1/8 sec to f/22 @ 1 sec using Fuji Superia Reala and a polarizer (I will use Provia 100F in the future, but with its reduced latitude, will everything wash out?) Having read other threads, I was thinking 1/8 sec would be way too short and wanted to get longer than 1.0 sec, but couldn't, even under full shade conditions. After getting my prints back, I found that I liked the shorter exposures better, and maybe would've liked shorter than 1/8 sec even better. This is because all detail was washed out of the longer exposure. I am going to try to attach a dual photo showing the same scene at 1/8 and 1 sec to show what I mean. (This is just a simple flatbed scan of the prints -- my purpose here was not to produce a quality scan.) If it doesn't succeed, please just bear with my description. With the longer exposure, there was so much turbulence, all I got in large areas of the photo was pure white, no texture at all. With the shorter exposure, you could see the little dips and eddies in the waterflow. There's still plenty of blur, but it's less washed out. My main question is: Have others of you experienced the same thing? Is there a rule of thumb for shutter speeds based on waterflow or other parameter? Does it matter how close you are to the waterfall? My goal is not to have to bracket all the way from 1/60 sec to 1 sec on each shot to see which I like best. Besides, 1/60 at this light level and 100 speed film would have required f/2.8, which would not have been as sharp or have adequate DOF (I'd rather not use faster, grainier film). In short, I was just shocked that I preferred the shorter exposures. My other question is related. I have read of a technique where you underexpose the shot by 2-3 stops and take 4 or 8 multiple exposures of the scene. Has anybody tried this and do you like the results?