How do you slow down a waterfall?

[joshua j]

Hello,

 

I've read the technique several times and finally got my chance to test it last

weekend. I mounted the camera(Sony DSC-F828) on a tripod, set it to Shutter Mode

and checked with 1 Second exposure. Too bright. Tried a little higher. Too

bright. Lowered the ISO to 64. Too bright. Set the EV to -2. Too bright. Tried

possible combinations in Manual Mode. Too bright. Frustrated, I froze the damn

waterfall at 250/sec and left.

 

I really thought it was a very simple process. What did I do wrong? Or, what

didn't I do right?

 

Joshua.

[v.anisimov]

In "aperture priority" mode to set an aperture small for the effect. Neutral density filters might also help.

 

Personally, I can't stand the "white water" effect - too corny, overused, easily achieved, etc

[v.anisimov]

Duh! [one Duff too many] ...In "aperture priority" mode set an aperture small enough for the effect...

[zacker]

Build a Dam?

lol

actually, a really good Neutral Density filter and a cloudy day are what you need.. or, go out in the very early morning before the sun is too high, or early evening... Dawn or Dusk! And, it helps to find a really fast moving waterfall so you dont need to slow down the shutter to much!

good luck!

-zacker-

[zacker]

actually Josh, you did everything right! except for wait till the right time! the darker out, the better...

-zacker-

[joshua j]

So lighting is the key here(as always I guess). It was a fairly sunny day. And, I would have never thought of setting it to Aperture mode when the damn manual says set it to Shutter mode.

 

Thanks for the insight. I'll try it out.

 

Joshua.

[rainer_t]

- "it was a fairly sunny day"

 

let's assume 14 EV (at 100iso)

 

- "Lowered the ISO to 64"

 

ok ... 13.5 EV left.

 

- "set it to Shutter Mode and checked with 1 Second exposure"

 

1 Second ... so still 13.5 EV left.

 

That means you need to stop down 13.5 f-stops (from f/1) ...

that would be near f/128. Since your lense cannot stop down that

far all pictures will be overexposed.

 

The best that you could have done (without neutral filters) is smallest iso (likely the 64 you already took) and smallest aperture

and let the camera select the time.

 

Rainer

[joseph_wisniewski]

Well, your question has three parts. I'll address the first one, how would you shoot a cotton candy waterfall with your particular camera.

 

I assume you were zoomed in. Your 828 can only stop down to f8 at normal or telephoto focal lengths. In aperture priority (I won't do all the EV stuff like Ranier did) Sunny f16 tells us we're at 1/64 sec at f16 at ISO 64. Opening up two stops to f8 means 1/4 of 1/64 sec = 1/250 sec exposure. That's not going to work.

 

As Vladimir suggested, to do it the traditional way, you would need an 8 stop neutral density filter to get a 1 second. Unfortunately, your 828 takes a 58mm filter, and only B+W makes neutral density filters in that size. You have a choice (at $48 each) of ND1.8 (6 stops) and ND3.0 (10 stops). I'd go ND3.0, because it gets you good results in the range up to 4 seconds (ISO 64 and f8) down to 0.7 seconds (ISO 100 and f4).

 

You won't be able to get into "cotton candy" shutter speed range with your camera even if you're shooting at dusk or dawn to get less light, without an ND filter. At those times, ND1.8 (6 stops) is fine.

 

Now, the second part of the question, how would I shoot a cotton candy waterfall. That's easy, I wouldn't. I agree with Vladimir, the word "corny" comes to mind.

 

And the third part, if I had to, with my gear, how would I do it? I shoot a Nikon D200 and D2X. Both of which have an averaging multiple exposure mode, go down to ISO 100, and can control lenses to f22 (I wouldn't go smaller). So, we're at 1/50 sec, and that's not good. But it's a waterfall, which probably means wet rocks, vegetation, and sky, so I'd use a polarizer (and hey, you can get those in 58mm easily). That gets me down to 1/20 sec. My cameras can average a burst of 10 shots (at 5 frames/sec) into a single picture, and that gives us 10 1/20 sec "slices" (1/2 sec, total) over a 2 second interval. That's good cotton candy.

 

Your 828 can do a burst of 7 shots, at 1/250 sec, and give you 7 JPEGS. You could then bring those into PhotoShop on 7 layers and blend the layers in "average" mode to get the same effect I would, albeit with less slices and smaller ones. The polarizer will get you down to 1/100 sec, and the average of 7 shots will get you to 1/13 sec of slices, spread out over a 2.5 second sequence.

[Ed_Ingold]

Joshua,

 

Everything you tried (lowering the ISO, changed the EV) actually changed the exposure in a way that would result in overexposure. Changing the EV by -2 would result in a 2 stop overexposure, which is serious.

 

What you want to do is to change both the f/stop and shutter speed together as to keep the SAME exposure value, but to make the shutter speed longer. The general term is called the "reciprocity effect". The easiest way to do this is to use Aperture Priority, and close down the lens. You would like a shutter speed of 1/8 to 1/4 second for moderate blurring, longer for the "white water" effect (which, I agree, is usually overdone). If you can't close the lens down enough, then use a neutral density filter. If you don't have one, then a polarizing filter will give you another stop or two.

 

The contrast of a scene with a waterfall is often too great to capture in a single exposure. If you expose for the waterfall itself, the surrounding foliage will be underexposed. If you can't wait for a cloud to cover the sun, then meter the water and open up two stops (change the EV by +2). You could also take two shots (using a tripod) - one for the water and the other for the surroundings. Then combine the shots in Photoshop.

[scott_eaton]

<I>I can't stand the "white water" effect - too corny, overused, easily achieved, etc </i><P> Ditto, even though I tend to sell a lot of prints like this.<P>My favorite water shots tend to be around 1/4 second or so. This way you get some blurring, but also retain some sharp detail in the water.

[peterblaise]

.

 

Use a tripod and set the camera for an automatic time lapse sequence of as many shots as you think you'll use and overlay them in photoshop where differences from picture to picture will cause the rendition of that part of the image to appear "blurred".

 

Stacked polarizers and or neutral density filters are the most simple way to require an extended shutter opening time and allow the capturing of subject motion as blur.

 

However, to slow the image of the water in the waterfall down to a standstill, use the highest speed shutter and a flash if necessary. THAT is what you asked for, but not what you meant!

 

Our terms are quite ambiguous and off-putting, especially to newbies. "Cotton candy" was a new term to me, but immediately "clear" as to the meaning.

 

Fun exploration. Patience is the most called uppon tool of the photographer - please return to the scene and try, try try again, and share some pictures!

 

Thanks!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Alpha Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[joshua j]

Thank you all for your helpful responses. No doubt, some of the stuff was a bit too technical for me and went over my head. But, as always, I learned a lot from your replies.

 

"However, to slow the image of the water in the waterfall down to a standstill, use the highest speed shutter and a flash if necessary. THAT is what you asked for, but not what you meant!"

 

Thanks for pointing out my folly.

 

Joshua.

[wade_rose]

Wait for the middle of summer the water will slow........;D

[conrad_hoffman]

First you get a couple of beavers...

 

Actually this is easy with one of the denser Cokin ND filters and a low ISO setting. As mentioned above, you can also use two (crossed) polarizers to get pretty high values of ND, though the color may go a bit funny. Another interesting thing to do was outlined in the old Kodak Here's How series. On film, you shoot a triple exposure using red, green, and blue filters. The result is normal color in everything that doesn't move, and bright red, green, and blue highlights in the moving water. With digital, you could just shoot three frames with the filters, then combine them in post processing. You need the slight time interval between shots to make this work.

[jcuknz]

With a Pro-sumer such as the 828 you have a problem that in bright sunlight your exposure is already 1/250 at f/8 and you cannot close the lens down any more [the way a DSLR user can]. Aperture and shutter are like a see-saw, as one goes down the other must go up to maintain correct exposure.

 

You need a lot of Neutral density filtering and the best way to do this is to get yourself a liniar polarising filter and either another one or else a circular polariser. You can then by rotating the filters against each other get yourself a variable ND filter effect. A pair of circular polarisers does not have this effect.

Liniar and circular doesn't describe the shape of the filter but how it is made so both will be circular shaped and theaded to suit your camera's lens barrel.

 

An alternative solution would be to get an infra red filter which probably will require an exposure of one or more seconds in bright sunlight ... that will give you a the milky water effect but sadly no color, just B&W.

[studor13]

Josh, like yourself I am mesmerised by the *corny* effect of water flowing over things. Here are two examples and if you study them enough you will see that there are some major differences between them. One was shot at f22 and the other at f11. I will let you figure it out for yourself which is which.

 

If you can bracket your shots you will love doing these sorts of things because all you need is to take 3 shoot (at �1.5, 0 and +1.5 EV). Unfortunately you will need something like Photomatix to automatically layer the three shots (taken very very still from a tripod) for you, or you will have to do it somewhat manually in Photoshop. If you can�t bracket, you will have to dial slowly and carefully so that the tripod doesn�t move to get under exposure, correct exposure, and over exposure.

 

If you are short on cash like me and can�t afford all the ND filters, it will not be easy to do since you will more or less be working in the dark. It doesn�t have to be completely dark but dark enough so that at around f11 a correct light reading gives about 1 second. If you have a good lens then even at f22 and 1 second will give good results.

 

If you do this late in the evening it gets more and more difficult as the light goes, but if you do it at dawn it gets light quickly, so you have to be very quick. (yes, no money no honey)

 

As some have suggested before, shooting at the biggest f number is the best option to start with since you can work in a fair bit of light, but with a bit of practice you will figure out at which f stop you like your water flow effects to be.

 

There will always be smarty-pants who find it all *too easy*, but for ordinary guys like us, we will just have to do it the hard way and cop it sweet. But it can be done, and you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you did it all yourself and without the fancy equipment.

 

Good luck

[studor13]

and this one

[joseph_wisniewski]

JC - "You need a lot of Neutral density filtering and the best way to do this is to get yourself a liniar polarising filter and either another one or else a circular polariser"

 

Crossed polarizers "leak" substantial violet, ultraviolet, and infrared. The 828 falls into the category of digital cameras that are very sensitive to IR (as is my old D100), and the end result is that a waterfall shot is almost unmanageable with such a camera, due to hard to process magenta casts across the water and the clouds.

 

Not to mention using crossed polarizers precludes the use of a single polarizer in a controlled fashion to darken the sky or deepen the colors of vegetation or wet rocks...

[joseph_wisniewski]

Andy - "If you are short on cash like me and can?t afford all the ND filters"

 

We'll get to that. But your other comments about f11 and f22 won't help Josh. Welcome to the exciting world of point and shoot cameras, where f8 is as small as the apertures go. They have very small sensors, so even f8 produces as much diffraction as f32 does on a 35mm camera, and you really want to be at f5.6.

 

Now, back to this "short on cash" issue.

 

The very first time I did a long exposure outdoor daylight picture (maybe 35 years ago), I made my own ND filter the way that Aaron Sussman described in the "amateur photographer's handbook". Take a junker UV filter, and move it over a candle flame until it accumulates soot. Meter through it to see how many stops the soot cuts. Soot is great for this, it's not particularly reflective, so what light doesn't make it through gets absorbed, not scattered, and there's no loss of contrast.

 

Other ways of making ND filters at no cost include using exposed, developed B&W negative film (you probably need medium format to get the size you want, ask a photography teacher at a local college). For very small digitals like my Canon S400, a big enough free ND filter can be gotten from Roscoe or Bogen as part of their gel filter sample packs, along with about 100 other interesting filters.

 

To make on very cheap, get a 3 inch square polyester "gel" filter from Lee. B&H sells them, and if memory serves, they're like $8.

[studor13]

Joshua, sorry about not knowing what you had. Joseph, *You the man*.

[joshua j]

"Build a Dam?"

"Wait for the middle of summer the water will slow"

"First you get a couple of beavers.."

 

And they said Photographers have no sense of humour. lol.

 

Anyway, gentlemen, thanks for all your time.

 

Regards,

 

Joshua

[john schroeder]

You sneek up on it with a slow shutter speed. And be bery bery quiwet, hahaha.

[titospna]

If you haven't given up on this thread yet, try this: On the top of this page click on the tab "Videos." On the right side of that window, look for the video 'Scenic Photography by Bryan Peterson.' The answer you seek is towards the second half of this video clip.

 

There are many things to explore on this web site. Sometimes it's easier to look for yourself, than wait for an answer that may never come. Have fun.

[joshua j]

Tito, thanks for the great tip.

 

Josh