Shutter Speed for Streams and Rivers?

[david_baker5]

Hey Guys & Galls, This is my first post (newbie to the site) I have a

question on what shutter speed do you all reccomend for streams and

rivers making them look like there in motion more than making them

look like a freeze frame. Any suggestions would help.

 

Thanks

 

David Baker

DBake7@msn.com

Canon EOS ELAN7

EF 28-90

[jim_hasapis]

Anything lower than 1/15th of a second should give you good results. I shoot at anywhere from 4 seconds to 1/8 myself.

[thidglance]

It all depends - normally the faster the river the faster the shutter speed you need for it to look good, if you leave it too long then all the detail goes and it looks crap. Normally I shoot anything from 1/15 down to 1 second for fast rivers and waterfalls, right down to a full min for a very slow moving trickle !

[patrick_smeaton]

You will need to increase shutter speed as you increase focal

length of lens (if you remain the same physical distance from the

water).

 

Or from a different perspective:

 

You will need to increase shutter speed as you move closer to

the water (assuming the use of the same lens).

[m._huber]

If you don't use a slow film, you might need to add a ND filter or polarizer.

[tom grubbe]

<p>I've found that it depends on your film and the scene you intend to shoot in addition to the effect you intend to get. Since your recent shot "Fox Road" was shot with Kodak Max 400 I would buy at least a 3-stop screw-on ND filter to slow it down enough, or much slower film (50-100 or so). </p>

 

<p>I generally use the slower ISO 50 (Velvia) or ISO 100 (E100VS) speed slide film which allows me to achieve this effect in a wide variety of lighting conditions. The amount of "silk" in the water is generally a matter of taste and can range from just a hint of motion to a completely cloudy or foggy look. In these (rather crappy) images of a Gilroy California stream I took a 2 second exposure and a 1/4 second exposure. I just adjusted the aperture (the camera was on apertured priority) and the shutter speed compensated to keep an accurate exposure. I tend to prefer the 1/4 second exposure but you may disagree.</p>

 

<p>Sometimes, because of lighting conditions, a slow shutter speed is mandatory - when shooting a stream in a heavily canopied forest or shooting after the sun goes down, for example. The opposite is also true - sometimes you can't get a slow enough shutter speed in daylight conditions so use a screw-on Neutral Density (ND) filter to help slow down the shutter speed.</p>

 

Oh, use a tripod!

 

<p>--Tom</p><div></div>

[eschrad]

I would like to suggest the use of a polarizer when shooting streams and

rivers as discussed. First of all, the polarizer is essentially a 2 stop ND filter,

helping you to attain slower shutter speeds. But secondly, the polarizer helps

eliminate specular highlights from wet rocks and from the water itself. This

way you get nice dark wet rocks and the water goes milky and still retains

some detail. The specular highlights can make the water blow out even more

than it already does at long shutter speeds.

 

As for shutter speeds... I like shooting around 1 second and sometimes

longer. But I prefer the milky look to the stop action look, so I definitely don't

shoot much shorter than 1/4 sec. But that is just my preference. I find

anything between milky and stopped action kind of boring and in conflict with

the picture in my mind's eye.

 

Definitely try the polarizer, you won't believe the difference.

[lawrence_palumbo]

i agree with most posts here. i would advise you to bracket around from 1/8 to 4 seconds and see which effect works best for your taste. each waterfall/river/situation is different so there won't be any 1 ideal shutter speed that someone can tell you here. i thought shooting waterfalls was easy until i tried it. be critical in framing and composition when you are behind the viewfinder. dont forget to have fun! good luck. larry

[erick_lamontagne]

I agree with most of what has been said. Use slow film, polarizer and if it's not enough, a ND filter.<p>

 

In general, I like a long exposure (2 sec.) for very small cascades, about 1/15 for larger ones (like Tom's photos) and 1/60 to 1/250 for large waterfall (Niagara-like) and river rapids. The reason for this is that a slow shutter speed will render a large waterfall as a white blob with no detail. For rapids, you would lose all the water flying around, thus actually reducing the sense of motion. This doesn't mean it's not interesting though. Long exposure works well on very small cascade because they produce thin, delicate lines contrasting with the rugged rocks. See <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/347754&size=lg>this photograph</a> (sorry, don't have a better exemple).<p>

 

Try a few exposure and decide what you like.

[jonathan_bundick]

More of a question than an answer, but would metering for white to appear white on the slide and then go from there to get the effect you want? Would this be a good place to start? I mean if you want to avoid washing out completly? I have not done the type of shot that makes the water look like cotton candy, just tried to give some look of motion.

[sam_mahmoud]

A rough rule of thumb is that the speed that makes the water look

the way you remember seeing it when you were there is somewhere

in the vicinity of 1/15 to 1/30 -- similar to the speed in

frames-per-second that a movie has to reach in order to give the

illusion of motion.

 

Use that as a baseline and decide how far up or down from there

you want to go to get the effect you want. Then bracket.

[lee_shively]

Very slow speeds can also be interesting. When using a large format camera years ago, I did several fine shots at "speeds" of one minute or longer.

 

Experiment, use a tripod and get your feet wet.

[erick_lamontagne]

Jonathan, I've never tried metering that way. The problem is not really the water being white but the loss of detail. The cotton candy look can still be interesting but, in my opinion, it attenuates the sense of motion.

[les_gyug1]

George Lepp (I think?) wrote an article with another suggestion (I think in OP) several years ago. Try making multiple exposures at fast shutter speeds (1/60th or faster) without moving the framing. The effect on a cascade of water is that there are more frozen droplets in the air. It also works for a slow-moving stream where you want more bubbles floating on the surface. The results are not entirely predictable for any particular frame, so you basically just have to try it and see what results you can produce (which is really the same for all the other methods, bracket the speed generously and see which one you like the best).

[Brian P Bower CamraScapes]

I combined a ND8 filter with a polarizer to get a long 16 second exposure of a small waterfall. This long exposure created the milk effect in the water but by firing off a flash during the exposure, I was able to capture specular highlights of water droplets in the air. This makes a nice combination of sharpness and blur in the same photo.