Waterfalls near Squamish

My first attempt at using a slower shutter speed to soften the

appearance of the water. Any thoughts, advice, or critique is

appreciated. Thanks for looking.

Nice, Linda!  I think it's excellent...especially for a first attempt. 

I noticed that your shutter speed was 1/125 of a second...which is actually a fast speed to use for achieving a "soft" water effect. Your picture accomplishes a somewhat soft effect, but still manages to capture some of the energy and power of the water as it falls.  If you notice, in places where the water volume is the heaviest...that's where the softness comes through. And conversely, where the volume is less...the energy. 

I don't know what time of day you shot the picture (and realize all to well that we can't always choose the "best" time to take a particular picture), but if you want a very silky, soft shot...minus the "energy"...shooting closer to dark will allow you to keep the shutter open longer and make the effect easier to achieve. As well...(and just as importantly) you can shoot with a smaller aperture.  In fact you could shoot with as small an aperture ...like say, f/22...or whatever your lens will allow...and then your shutter speed with be much slower. Assuming this shot wasn't taken close to dawn or dusk, going from f/14 to f/22 would have allowed for a longer exposure...and a more silky w/fall shot.  The problem that can comes with shooting at times other than dusk or dawn (even when it's cloudy) is that a slow shutter speed tends to blow out areas where the water volume is the heaviest...especially if you're not shooting with the smallest aperture available. (I sure hope i'm not confusing the heck out of you!) If you notice, near the top of the picture, there's an area of water that is bright white...and close to being overexposed.  With an aperture of f/14...as it was shot, if the exposure were any longer...that area would be blown out.  So...solution:  again, smallest aperture possible. 

For a softer, silkier effect...I'd start at a 1 second exposure. If that is too long, keep backing down the time til you achieve the effect you're looking for. Lots of times I'll shoot shots like this with a 2 or 3 second exposure...or even longer in dim light. This give you a "super" silky shot. This is one type of shot where there's no perfect formula. Trial and error will serve you well...and the more of this type shot you shoot...the more intuitive it will become!

And...almost forgot. You might want to consider buying a neutral density filter. They come in different intensities....some dark enough to shoot in some pretty bright light and still be able to take a long exposure.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

John

............ for a first attempt, I think you have done exceptionally well, in fact far better than any of my attempts at waterfalls......... so, well done.

John's critique is very good, and I have learned a few things (for my next attempt). It is good to be able to look at an image and read another's critique and "see" what is being said........ thank you John. ND filter Mmmmn.

Thankyou both for another bit of my learning curve.

Regards 

Great first attempt. Personally I don't care for overly smooth water. I prefer some texture. You accomplished that very well in this shot. showing the power ,and movement of the water,without hiding the rocks behind the water. I like that you framed the falls with trees all the way around. You did came extremely close to blowing out two areas of water, and I would try Johns recommendations if possible.(time of day )

I hope you don't mind. I touched up the bright areas of water a little bit.

Pat

A very nicely composed beautiful shot, Linda!

With best regards,

Ruud.

THANK YOU! 

I have taken a few shots of waterfalls in the past, but I always tried to capture all  the detail in the powerful force. I came across this when traveling with my husband. It looked so “pretty” with the mist and spray around the falling water which gave it a natural diffused light and I wanted to capture that lovely soft, misty  effect. I wasn’t prepared so experimented with different shutter speeds, ISO, and TV and also took a few in full auto just in case.  I haven’t done a lot of slow shutter speed work.This was shot in the late morning. It was very cloudy and raining on and off. It was in the coastal rain forest and very dark.

So, the shutter speed was too fast. This was something I wasn’t sure about. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. I didn’t know about the long shutter speed and blow out. There are definitely blown out areas here and this was a relatively fast shutter speed. I know that it is all about getting the right exposure, the correct balance of ISO, AV and TV plus focus, then composition… etc., not always so easy. Thanks also for the tip about a neutral density filter, this is something else I didn’t know about. I used a polarizing filter here, a  B+W 77mm UV-Haze 010 F-pro. This is another area where I need to learn more.

I am curious, what type of lens would you use here? I used my Canon 24-70 L 2.8. here.

I really appreciate it when someone gives me helpful advice. So thanks again.

Cheers,

Linda

Linda, I like your composition (some framing vegetation on the right, and trees on the left with the waterfall off-center), so your use of the 24-70 was appropriate, IMO.  You might try just barely eliminating the sky completely and see what you think of the resulting image.

Folks vary a lot in their opinions of slow shutter speeds and moving water.  There is also a range of effects within the realm of slow shutter speeds, from super silky to silky with some texture.  Like John suggests, a range of shutter speeds from which you can choose will help.  I've become aware of the advantages of some detail in waves, especially if they include reflecting waves, in slow-shutter-speed photos of marine shorelines.  One photographer on this site who I think has found a great compromise between fast and slow in some of his photos is Jeff Grant.

Rather than relying on f/22 to slow the shutter speed, I like to use ND filters.  I use filters ranging from 3 stops to 10 stops of light reduction.  The 10x is so dark that I can't really see through it, so it requires composing first (on a tripod, of course) and then attaching the filter.

Grayham, thanks! I am always learning things here at PN.

Patrick, thank for doing the touch up. I like what you did. It is an improvement.

Ruud,  thank you.

Stephen, thanks so much for taking the time tell me your thoughts about my effort here, and also about Jeff Grant. His images of moving water are incredible. I will have to check out the ND filters.

Very nice Linda... I must get myself up there one day!!! that's a big waterfall. 

I love the power of water rushing over falls, you have done a good job of capturing it. The biggest problem I have using a slower shutter to catch the water is blowing out the whites. It looks like you may have had the same issue, at least on my monitor. There are areas where the details seam to be lost. I do like the composition of this shot. - Charles

Thanks so much for commenting.