Long Exposure From Water

[christopher_morris3]

<p>I have been trying to figure out a way to take some long exposures of waterfalls from my kayak. There are literally 100's of waterfalls that exist in a gorge filled lake after a decent rain a few hours from me. I have created some decent handheld shots at near a second exposure but not all turn out and would love to be able to expose longer. So obviously this creates several issues.<br>

First off the only way to get to all the waterfalls is from the water. Beyond that, many are only located in areas that do not allow motor boats or the water is too shallow in certain areas to get to the falls or the waterway is too narrow. So kayaking becomes the best way to see and shoot these falls.<br>

This creates a whole new issue of trying to shoot a long exposure of the waterfalls. If the water was shallow that would be an obvious solution but almost all the falls are located in the gorge filled lake, meaning it is even over 100' deep in some areas. I guess this is one of the reason almost all of these falls are undocumented and have not been heavily photographed or known by most other than some kayakers and locals.<br>

I guess I am looking for some ideas for a way to shoot from a smaller watercraft. Even a ski/fishing boat creates enough motion to make this an issue. Shooting on cloudy days (better for waterfalls and long exposure) that are generally more windy and not calm also add to this problem. Is there any known solution to this? <br>

Would some variety of a Gyroscope solve this problem? That would seem to stop all movement but vertical. Not sure how you would go about leveling a camera on one of them though. Thoughts? <br>

And thanks!</p>

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi Chris<br>

I wonder whether going for a long exposure is the right approach to this problem. You might get better results if you crank up the ISO rating on your camera so that you can take short exposures. I doubt any gyroscopic platform for your camera would be much use.<br>

Good luck<br>

Roy</p>

<p> </p>

[christopher_morris3]

Hey Roy,

The problem with speeding up the shutter

speed is you get a horrid picture of the falls

then. As if it was stopped in time. I'm

looking at a long exposure to get the water

flowing like I normally would from land on a

tripod. Just not sure if that is even possible

from the water.

 

Thanks.

[roy_nash]

<p>Hi Again Chris<br>

Yes you are right that very fast exposures would not give you the look you want. However you may need to compromise. It is my belief that if you can achieve a shutter speed as fast as 1/30, 1/60 or even a bit faster you could be lucky and get sufficient movement in the waterfalls without too much movement from the boat. Success will obviously be more a question of chance so take plenty of shots and some may be OK.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Roy</p>

<p> </p>

[phule]

<p>There is no way to do this with a single shot from a boat. Your exposure times are too long. So, short of using the motion blur to create something different (perhaps successfully, perhaps not) then I would shoot multiple photos (quickly) in a row and look at blending them (or at least blending the waterfall part of the scene) together. It would certainly take some Photoshop work and might not even look that natural in the end but it's an option. </p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>I can't see a way of making this happen, but then I can't see a way of making what you already say you've done happen either. I do suspect that close scrutiny of your 1 sec exposures would make you believe that its extremely difficult to get a usable enlargement from a 1 second exposure, hand-held. If you add the fact that the photographer is also moving, its really tough and you won't be able to rely on getting a result, even if you make 100. </p>

<p>I'd be incined to make some fast, sharp exposures and see whether I could use PS or NIK filters to smooth the water.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>With a relatively new VR lens, you might be lucky enough to get some percentage of hits at long exposures, but surely not every time. In my efforts at this, I have got handheld (standing on solid ground) waterfall blur as fast as 1/30 sec. at 90±mm. Not, however, continuous blur of the 'classic' kind. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'd agree with the suggestion of taking multiple shots at "normal" shutter speeds and combining them. The difficulty there might be aligning all the images, especially if the boat is drifting. There is software out there that might help. Look at some of the astronomy software. They can often stack and align dozens of images. HDR software might also be usable since they can stack and align multiple images. With HDR software you don't <em>have</em> to go for the HDR look.</p>

<p>I can't see any stabilization system that's going to allow for exposures in the 1 second range with the sort of lenses you'll probably be using. </p>

[szrimaging]

<p>I'm with the others in saying the multiple photo route. Haven't tried it myself, but my guess is it will be the only, truly feasible method. Photoshop has some really good align tools in addition to Bob's suggestions.</p>

<p>You can't get to a nearby shore and shoot with a longish lens, can you? (Probably a silly question, but I have to ask)</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>Seems like your best bet would be to arrive first thing in the morning while the water was glassy, then mount a tripod on the kayak, then be still as a meditating monk and hold your breath during a 4-sec. exposure. Make several attempts, and maybe you get a good one. Probably futile, but worth a try.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>You know, they do make kayaks and canoes that are shaped to be a bit more steady. Used for fly fhishing, if I remember correctly...</p>

[jo7hs2]

That's a tough one. I don't think there is a simple, technological solution. I think this is a brute force problem.

 

Here's what I would do... Head out early on a calm morning. Pick the fastest shutter speed that will still blur the water,

which will vary some based on the flow of the specific falls, so you may need to experiment. Mount the camera on the

kayak. Keep shooting until you get one without blur where you don't want it. Multiple exposures would be the other option,

but the alignment is going to be a bear, so you are probably looking at a similar number of overall exposures, since you'll

be relying heavily on chance to get moments of sufficient steadiness. I'd maybe try both and see which works. Then, once

I'd done one or two, I'd consider a comprehensive project over time.

[jo7hs2]

As an aside... Roy Nash is on to something. Having not seen these waterfalls, I cannot say for certain, but you *may* be

able to blur the water's motion while still having sufficient shutter speed to avoid most motion from your watercraft. The

general rule for motion blur in water, at least in my mind, is more flow equals faster shutter. A small, wispy seasonal

waterfall generally requires a longer shutter speed to look the way I want it too, whereas a raging torrent sometimes even

looks better frozen in moth, rather than blurred at all. Similarly, distance from the waterfall and focal length plays a role as

well. I can often achieve the look I want with a faster shutter speed the further I am from the falls, or with a wider lens, all

things otherwise being equal. I'm sure there is some complicated mathematical explanation, but those are just some

observations I've made in photographing quite a few waterfalls if varying sizes. Point being, I've been able to get sufficient blur at surprisingly fast shutter speeds under certain conditions, maybe just fast enough that it could offset the relatively low frequency movement of a kayak on still water.

 

Since these "waterfalls" sound like seasonal falls at best, and really more like rare runoff falls (we won't get into the "what

defines a waterfall discussion, it is long, boring, and annoying), it really depends on how much rain it takes to get these

waterfalls flowing. If we are talking hundreds of wispy, gossamer threads after regular rainstorms, you may be out of luck.

If we are talking raging torrents, you may get lucky. Of course, then you might have color issues due to sediment.

 

Either way, I wish you luck!

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I shoot from a kayak a lot and don't think there is a way to achieve this. <br>

I carry a 10-stop ND with me for the times I can get the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=417114141683913&set=a.417113511683976.100310.171846589544004&type=3&theater">camera stable</a> on land. </p>

[Laurie1]

<p>Hi, I have no experience with this type of shot even on land but it occurred to me that you could use a small stable raft with a low tripod mounted on it. Off course it would depend on the logistics of getting it there and the calmness of the water to keep the camera stable and pointing in the right direction. It is by no means a perfect solution with respect to movement and framing, but if you could remote trigger the camera this would at least take your own movement in a relatively unstable kayak out of the equation. Might be a little out of left field but thought I would throw it into the ring.</p>

<p>Regards<br>

Laurie</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>Couple of points....</p>

<ol>

<li>To take the photo you want, of flowing water - you won't be able to get that photo from a boat. At the very least you will need to park the camera on a semi flat stone or log. The exposures can range from 1 to 3 seconds and beyond.</li>

<li>I disagree with Chris on his "horrid" comment. A photos, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. What one person thinks is "horrid" the next person will say moves them greatly.</li>

</ol>

<p>Here are some examples of both frozen and moving falls - each have their own qualities:<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7910490898/<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7910489150<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7587175904<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/7587171930</p>

<p>Finally there is a type of waterfall where a fast exposure still shows motion, example:<br>

This one was shot at 1000th of a second<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/8054776776/</p>

<p>This one was shot at 400th of a second<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tudorapmadoc/8075343976/</p>

<p> </p>

[thakurdalipsingh]

<p>I suggest -There is no substitute for a stable platform, though all sugessions are good.<br>

try very long legged tripod in shallow water,(You can mount a extender on your tripod legs which you can make yourself, not very difficult.) At least few waterfalls can be shot this way. May be from a distance with tele lens. All water falls make a deep hole where water falls then where it flows out it is shallow. you can find a shallow-water place, I am sure. <br>

Other option is - If falls are in narrow gorges/rocks both sides, then hammer a long thick strong spike (12-18"long and 1" thick) in the rock crevices, mount head on this and your camera is rock steady. <br>

Otherwise in narrow places Manfrotto poles can be used, these are poles which can be adjusted for their length and they are spring loaded to keep their length. <br>

In my humble opinion- best and most stable platform can be 1. Long legged tripod. 2. A spike in to rock crevices.3. horizontal bar/poles with camera mounted on that.</p>

[stp]

<p>I'm not sure what you want. If you want a silky smooth waterfall with no detail, then you're probably up a creek without a paddle (pun entirely intended) because it's going to require a long exposure of a couple of seconds or more. It sounds like you don't want a really sharp rendition, something sharper than what the eye might see, so that rules out the 1/500 plus shots. But if you want what your eye sees, flow with some amount of detail, you should have no trouble with that, especially with an image stabilization lens. If I were in your boat, I'd be experimenting all the way from 1/60 down to about 1/2 second and find what produces the look you're after.</p>

[christopher_morris3]

<p>Thanks all, some great ideas to try out.</p>

<p>Zach-<br>

No unfortunately the other side is also sheer cliffs. The only way that would be possible if getting on top of the cliffs which would require a lot of work, bushwhacking trespassing and lots and lots of time as it would be miles going in and out along the top to get what is a much shorter distance down the middle of the lake in a boat.</p>

<p>Joshua-<br>

Not a bad idea, and I have taken many HDR's handheld from a kayak and able to stack them just fine with HDR software. I could possibly do the same maybe with stacking a shot to get better detail out of the cliffs and surrounding area of the falls.<br>

As for the falls, there are many that take a torrent of rain (aka more just areas of runoff from normally dry creeks, but beautiful non the less) but there are quite a large number of established falls that are always flowing it is just a matter of how much flow on a falls to falls basis. Obviously the best bet is to be there after a strong rain as that would require not as long of an exposure to get the motion of the falls I am looking for.</p>

<p>Tudor-<br>

Thanks, my use of words might of been a bit harsh. I know I can take some great isolation shots and quick shutter speed shots of the falls, but want to try to do something different from the water.</p>

<p>Thakur-<br>

Thanks that some decent ideas. Do not know if it would be against state park rules to hammer into the cliffs or not.</p>

<p>Thanks again all. Most of the quality falls in the area I am able to wade in chest deep water or they are at a creek at the edge of the lake and getting out it the obvious option and that is what I have done when there before, but there are some quite amazing falls that are straight into the gorge that you can kayak behind and cool off in falls that are in deep areas with no way to shoot them but from the water. These are the ones that I wanted to try to be able to get in a way that no one else has before.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[No unfortunately the other side is also sheer cliffs. The only way that would be possible if getting on top of the cliffs]]<br>

<br>

If you can get to them by kayak, are you certain you couldn't secure a camera there? Rock climbers secure themselves in much more inaccessible locations. :) </p>

[jo7hs2]

Rob may be on to something... Are there crevices in those canyon walls? You may be able to jam a monopod or

something in one to hold your camera steady long enough to take a sufficiently long exposure. I've had to do similar stuff

on weird inclines before, and while it is risky for the camera, it can work.

[Two23]

<p>I photo waterfalls quite a bit, and I also shoot from a kayak. I don't see anyway for long exposure unless the water is frozen. Around a waterfall there is always going to be some flow of the water. FWIW, I virtually never shoot waterfalls at long exposure. I like some "life" in the water and shoot 1/30s. I own some camera equipment from the 1870s and will shoot long exposure with that, but only because my pre-Civil War lenses have no shutters.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[2Oceans]

Christopher, you will need to get out of the boat and shoot in shallow water or shore or get a very long tripod that will stand on the

river/stream bed and still clear the surface. Technique is critical. A moving boat is just that and IS, VR or what ever a stabilized

system does will not create enough of what it does to nail the image. Good hunting. Andy

[rjmelone]

<p>Hi Chris, I do a lot of bird photography from a kayak which can be very challenging depending on how windy it is and how fast the water is moving. When this is the case, I have to beach my kayak for stability, remain in it, and wait for the birds to approach. This has produced some good shots, but my intent is to achieve excellent detail, not blur.<br>

So, knowing what it is like to photograph from a kayak, I’ve been trying to come up with a solution to your problem. I hope that you have a sit-in kayak. Sit-on-top versions are far too buoyant (like sitting on top of a bar of soap!). If you are trying to achieve a good motion blur shot, then technique should provide the results you are after. Here are some suggestions, some of which have already been made: Wait for a very still, overcast day, reduce your ISO, use a short focal length and ND filter, look through the viewfinder, hold your breath and then release the shutter. It’s important that you do not move your head quickly after you hear the shutter release. Keep your eye fixed on the subject through the viewfinder, listen for the shutter, wait a second, and then you can move. You may also want to experiment with delaying your shutter a second or two. In this case, hold your breath, depress the shutter and wait for the release. If you have a sit-in kayak, try sitting low using your one arm to brace the camera against the kayak’s cockpit rim. A monopod may also be worth a try. Anchor it on the bottom of the kayak just in front of the seat. Also, try shooting the falls from a side angle where motion appears faster. <br>

Of course, the key to all of this is repetition. If you take enough shots using various techniques, then I think you should be able to obtain a good motion blur shot. Let us know...</p>

[dfperrault]

<p>Talk to this company, they may have a solution, they make dual, 3 axis gyros ( active, I think). Let us know how you make out<br>

http://www.ken-lab.com/</p>