Bushwalk Australia

I thought I might try to find out what others think about the different photographs of waterfalls.

Which set do you prefer?

SET A - (1/2 second shutter, F22, ISO 100)
A1 A2

SET B - (1/40th second shutter, F4.5, ISO 100
B1 B2

SET C - (1/250th second shutter, F 3.5, ISO 400)
C1 C2

im a sucker for the soft feathery water look. its the reason i bought my neutral density filter...and its the reaon that filter is still my favorite.

taswaterfalls.com wrote:im a sucker for the soft feathery water look. its the reason i bought my neutral density filter...and its the reaon that filter is still my favorite.

What he said!

I'm certainly no great photographer, and I know that technically most photographers go for the long shutter speed to get the soft water look. But I prefer the fast shutter speed because it matches more closely with the reality of what I'm seeing with my eye. Of course nothing captures the reality of movement in a single still photo without blurring, so I like to capture the reality of the instant in time, with the minimal amount of blurring.

Son of a Beach wrote:I'm certainly no great photographer, and I know that technically most photographers go for the long shutter speed to get the soft water look. But I prefer the fast shutter speed because it matches more closely with the reality of what I'm seeing with my eye. Of course nothing captures the reality of movement in a single still photo without blurring, so I like to capture the reality of the instant in time, with the minimal amount of blurring.

What he said! ...but I've voted for the middle one.

The milky effect is cute and a very popular artistic look but not something you actually see in real life. Also, I have found that to get the milky look, I need to use a tripod to avoid the surrounding detail from being blurry in the low light conditions at the bottom of many falls. Especially when I'm walking alone, I usually have a fairly full agenda and stopping to muck around with tripods is not the sort of thing I take the time for. Being something of a fall-bagger, I would prefer to take the extra time to fit another waterfall into my day.

At the weekend I had quite a proud waterfall photography moment. Budget has not permitted me to enter the realms of digital SLRs so my weapon of choice is a modest 6MP Kodak with 10x optical zoom. Along with the ability to manually fiddle with f-stops, asa, apperture & shutter speed, it also has a number of auto settings. I chose the setting for a backlight situation to get a ripper family snap in the gloom with a sun-drenched Nelson Falls in the background. Another visitor gave me his extremely expensive looking DSLR to get a shot of his group in front of the falls. When I produced a lovely silhouette of his group, I asked if there was a setting to capture the waterfall in natural light but trigger the flash for the foreground. He said no because the large lense he was using was too big and gets in the way of the in-built flash. Sometimes bigger is not always better.

tastrekker wrote:

Son of a Beach wrote:I'm certainly no great photographer, and I know that technically most photographers go for the long shutter speed to get the soft water look. But I prefer the fast shutter speed because it matches more closely with the reality of what I'm seeing with my eye. Of course nothing captures the reality of movement in a single still photo without blurring, so I like to capture the reality of the instant in time, with the minimal amount of blurring.

What he said! ...but I've voted for the middle one.

The milky effect is cute and a very popular artistic look but not something you actually see in real life. Also, I have found that to get the milky look, I need to use a tripod to avoid the surrounding detail from being blurry in the low light conditions at the bottom of many falls. Especially when I'm walking alone, I usually have a fairly full agenda and stopping to muck around with tripods is not the sort of thing I take the time for. Being something of a fall-bagger, I would prefer to take the extra time to fit another waterfall into my day.

This is why the the good spaghetti monster invented the log or rock. Many a good soft waterfall shot has been taken with the camera resting on whatever can be found in the area.

tastrekker wrote:At the weekend I had quite a proud waterfall photography moment. Budget has not permitted me to enter the realms of digital SLRs so my weapon of choice is a modest 6MP Kodak with 10x optical zoom. Along with the ability to manually fiddle with f-stops, asa, apperture & shutter speed, it also has a number of auto settings. I chose the setting for a backlight situation to get a ripper family snap in the gloom with a sun-drenched Nelson Falls in the background. Another visitor gave me his extremely expensive looking DSLR to get a shot of his group in front of the falls. When I produced a lovely silhouette of his group, I asked if there was a setting to capture the waterfall in natural light but trigger the flash for the foreground. He said no because the large lense he was using was too big and gets in the way of the in-built flash. Sometimes bigger is not always better.

The onboard flash on most slrs is useless imho. film or digital. Onboard flash on any camera is pretty horrible way to light a shot. much better off using available light and a higher iso if required or using a dedicated flash unit. I have dedicated flash from my nikon and its *&%$#! good stuff.

tastrekker wrote:What he said! ...but I've voted for the middle one.

The milky effect is cute and a very popular artistic look but not something you actually see in real life. Also, I have found that to get the milky look, I need to use a tripod to avoid the surrounding detail from being blurry in the low light conditions at the bottom of many falls. Especially when I'm walking alone, I usually have a fairly full agenda and stopping to muck around with tripods is not the sort of thing I take the time for. Being something of a fall-bagger, I would prefer to take the extra time to fit another waterfall into my day.

I am only an amateur with a camera, hence the original question. The first book I ever read about photography was a book of tips. The top tip was 'if you want sharp photographs buy and use a tripod'. Its a great tip. I carry a half kg tripod in a carry-bag that I clip onto my left shoulder and left hip. I can easily take the tripod out without unclipping the carry-bag. I know its a little bit more hassle, but I figure why walk all that way and risk missing out on a great shot.

Your 100% correct, one can't hand-hold a camera in low light. Also I often use a polarizing filter (so even less light). I get such poor photos when I don't use a tripod that now I just wouldn't walk without one.

Thanks for the input everyone! So far the result of the poll is very inconclusive (2:2:1). I've extended the poll for a little longer in case anyone else wished to register a vote.

Personally! I think the answer is somewhere between A and B. I like the artistic value of A and the realism of B. (Now the left side of the brain is having a fight with the right side ).

I like all three and to give the Artsy one a bit of definition I would use a mask in photoshop.

TassieMargie wrote:I like all three and to give the Artsy one a bit of definition I would use a mask in photoshop.

actually the artsy one is a great candidate for a HRD treatment...you didnt happen to shoot in raw did you mr walkintas?

No, they were not shot in RAW. They were all shot using as JPGs.

If you both would like a copy of A1 or A2, PM me and I'll give you the original. Then you can enhance them and show everyone.

Just my 2c worth, the problem with taking the photos at a faster shutter speed for a more realistic approach is that your apeture is quite wide f4 or so and this means that your depth of field is quite small, this means that infornt and behind your point of focus will quickly become less detailed and slightly blurred (or the area of acceptable sharpness will be small), where as with a small apeture (f22) more detail is incorperated into the photo behind and in front of your point of focus (or the area of acceptable sharpness will be much greater).
Hope that makes sense

Michael.

Mickeymoo wrote:Just my 2c worth, the problem with taking the photos at a faster shutter speed for a more realistic approach is that your apeture is quite wide f4 or so and this means that your depth of field is quite small, this means that infornt and behind your point of focus will quickly become less detailed and slightly blurred (or the area of acceptable sharpness will be small), where as with a small apeture (f22) more detail is incorperated into the photo behind and in front of your point of focus (or the area of acceptable sharpness will be much greater).
Hope that makes sense

Michael.

there is always film speed or digital ISO to cope with this. tradeoff is noise...but generally its acceptable to about 400ish depending on camera. Moreso in print as print generally hides the noise a bit. f4 or 5.6 etc sould still be enough to get a waterfall scene in I would think.

Sorry I wasn't trying to say that photos are no good with a wide apeture, I was trying to illustrate the point that more detail can be captured with a smaller apeture, but this I guess really comes down to the end use of the photos and what you want to do with them. At a small size the differences in using a large and small apeture will be hard to pick up as in the above photos, but if wanting to blow the photos up to a larger size the lack of detail would become more obvious imo. So I always use a tripod, low ISO (100) and the smallest apeture possible normally f22-29 to obtain an image that has the most detail possible but thats just me, the next person may not care and just wants pictures with out the hassel of a tripod and manual settings. hope that explains better what I was trying to get across

Michael.

I read an interesting article a while ago that showed that very small apertures actually soften your image, whilst still providing the greatest Depth Of Field. Ill see if i can find the article and post it here. It went against all I had learned but after reading it made sense.

I find a lot of my lenses have a sweet spot somewhere in the middle that gives the best sharpness to DOF ratio. Like you I always shoot on lowest ISO possible and use tripod...I was only suggesting it above to provide alternatives for those that like the sharp water effect. As previously stated im a dead sucker for the soft water

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm

thats the page...about 3/4 of the way down under small apertures and diffraction heading. A lot of people dont like Ken Rockwels point of view...but most of them shoot canon..and deserve everything they get

More over here:
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

and here:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/f-stops.htm

and another view on it here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

The upshot of it all is basically summed up in this quote though:

ken rockwell wrote:Unless you absolutely need depth of field, avoid apertures smaller than f/8 on modern digital SLRs. Their resolving power is so great that you will soften your images by stopping down unnecessarily. This is why many point-and-shoot cameras don't stop down past f/8.

Sorry for geeking out a bit, combining my 2 favourite things here so I might have got carried away

Once again this is why my ND filter is my favourite. It allows longer exposure without the use of small apertures.

Thats a very interesting article Joe, thanks for sharing, I am the same my two favourite things are bushwalking and photography
though I do use canon im assuming you must shoot nikon.

Michael.

Mickeymoo wrote:So I always use a tripod, low ISO (100) and the smallest apeture possible normally f22-29 to obtain an image that has the most detail possible but thats just me, the next person may not care and just wants pictures with out the hassel of a tripod and manual settings. Michael.

I am a big fan of using a tripod. For most Landscape photos my first shot will be Aperture Priority, ISO 100, F22, Auto white balance. For reasons mentioned, these settings will give good depth of field. However, they are likely to result in slower shutter speeds and soft milky waterfalls. Since the camera is an Olympus I have a range of scene settings (similar to the new Canon EOS 40D), so I will probably retake the shot using the Landscape scene setting (but I'm not always happy with the colour from this setting). Next I'll move to Shutter Priority and slowly speed up the shutter if I'm not happy with the first few shots.

Click on the small images above. I have added the originals for A1, B1 and C1 so you (and others) can play with them and examine the depth of field for yourself. TWF and TassieMargie suggested they might wish to use photoshop to "enhance" A1. I'm interested to see the results.

walkinTas wrote:Blah blah......... TWF and TassieMargie suggested they might wish to use photoshop to "enhance" A1. I'm interested to see the results.

The software i had in mind was reliant on getting a RAW file. I dont use these fancy shmancy photoshop doovers...its all open source for me...Im a quick tweak of levels on the higlights and shadows should bring the shot up nicely...but i CB *&$#...I was just gonna run the RAW through Qtpfsgui quickly to demonstrate HDR goodness

This poll is about to close. If you did want to offer an opinion then be quick, otherwise I will let the poll close. It has served its purpose with half the respondents (so far) preferring the long shutter speed and milky waters effect.

We are also getting a nice collection of waterfall photographs in the Some waterfalls of Tasmania gallery and that in itself is a good indication of how the different photographers approach the subject.

I'm a bit late to this party- but as an addicted waterfall photog, I can offer the following advice:

1) Regardless of the shutter speed, try to avoid going below f/11, as diffraction will make your image soft and lacking in contrast.

2) Trying to use a formulaic approach to shutter speed is pointless, as different waterfalls move at different speeds. When shooting a waterfall, I will shoot from 1/20 or so to say 3 sec, so I can later view the results on a big screen and see which one I like the best. Sometimes the results are surprising.

3) The BEST friend of a waterfall photog is a tripod, preferrably with a quick release. Alot of my pics are taken from in the water itself, and a tripod makes it much easier to keep everytihg dry. I have a Canon 24-105L IS lens, which will allow me to shoot at say 1/10 or 1/13 with some level of sharpness, but not a levle I'd consider acceptable for printing out at say 8x12 size. For slower than that, IMHO you need a tripod. Rocks and logs are good in a pinch, but have two real drawbacks in my opinion. 1) They do not allow you to position the camera freely to get the angle you want, and 2) they are a great way to let your camera roll into the water, which is....uh...regrettable.

4) The second best friends of a waterfall photog are a really good circular polariser and/ or a neutral density filter. I really need to upgrade my el-cheapo (if you can call $80 el cheapo) Hoya CP- it is shockingly bad. These filters let you get the effect you got in the first picture with a wider aperture, which in turn allows for better image quality.

My currently-lusted-after filter is the Singh Ray Vari-ND filter- it's a variable neutral density filter, which allows you to "dial" the ND effect, allowing you to take off betten 2 (I think, or maybe 3) stops to a whopping 8 stops, so you can take waterfall pics in the broad daylight without blowing out the highlights in the picture. Pricey, but I still want one badly.

Hard to argue with the camera poser after posting shots like that!
Pardon my ignorance, but when you said f11 was the limit, I assume you meant as in going towards a lower number?
Will include my most recent effort.
I'm a Nikon man. Had three Canons and then bought a Nikon. Would never go back, currently have a D50.
Cheers.

He means lower as in higher...gotta love how aperture confuses people. anything above f11 eg, f22 is going to be softer as a result of defraction.

Been a while since I've been here, thought I'd post a couple of pics I took since I did that posting. All taken with my D50 Nikon.

Personally, I think it depends on what you want. If the scene is lovely and romantic to you, then go for slow shutter speed but for a powerful, dramatic fall a speed which gives only a little blur gives a sense of the waters power. A speed which totally freezes the water does not really show what the eye sees but there might be times when that could be what you want too. Often, under a dense tree canopy there just isn't enough light for a quick speed without a high ISO and its concomitant noise issues. Personally, if you are serious about photography, I think you should always have a tripod, even if its just a cheap little one. Have fun!

Heres one taken of Liffey falls using a ndx400 Hoya nd filter,77 second exposure. overcast day with minimum wind.

Folks,

I have just found this thread. Try to use a tripod. It makes a lot of difference to sharpness in most cases. Generally sunny days are too contrasty, open shade (blue sky with the sun blocked by single cloud) gives freaky colour casts. Wherever possible try to shoot RAW. It allows for greater panelbeating later. If you think it's not your thing, shoot JPG and RAW, because one day, you might wish you could pull that bit more from the file(s)-you'll appreciate the raw capture.

I used to use a Hasselblad in the days of film; then various other body/lens combos. You do notice the difference with pro glass (I am a full time pro shooter). Nowadays, I carry a Nikon Coolpix P7100 camera for most walks, always carry a tripod, and exposed correctly, the Nikon's files are spectacular, we have enlarged them to 32inch by 46 inch, and they look amazingly good for a pocket rocket.

Any Qs, don't hesitate to post or PM. The only times I would take my D3 and multiple glass, is on a designated photo "trophy" walk, where the "walk is for the picture of the destination". Even then, the advantage wouldn't be huge. You can bracket expose on a tripod, wait a little longer for the right conditions, lots of ways to overcome wrong circumstance, with only a pro quality compact. The Nikon Coolpix 7100 has a "push-button" 3 stop ND filter, and goes down to iso100.

You'd be advised to try and expose for a point where you can "just" recover the hilights, that will yield you enough info in the shadows to boost them, and that will avoid the "pure white" burnout so common in photos where there is a hotspot. It's hard- the conditions are hardly ever ideal, and we hardly ever have unlimited time.

ND filters reduce the light by a "blanket" amount over the image, not specifically in one area, unless the filter is a gradient one. Practice. Shoot RAW, use a tripod, and most of all enjoy. If in doubt, bracket your exposures, learn to read the histogram for the image, if the camera happens to have this facility.

My favorite shot (on film tho so cant post it) to the best of my memory, was a slow shutter small aperature with flash fill a bit of a stop under exposed for detail with rear shutter flash... and the flash had a bit of gel warm-up filter stuck over it ( 81A i think it was)... Tripod and the self timer to take out more wobble... i usually use a circ. polariser ... would have been on an eos 5 i think and a 28-70 2.8 L
created a blend of warm soft ambient with detail over the top of it
Damn that sounded a bit wanky but thats the best i can describe it

Hey Liamy77,
That sounds a great shot. Yes, a slight boost in warmth from the 81A, over the coverage area of the flash- falling off nicely with the inverse square law of light! If you'd have shot in open shade on daylight balanced film, the waterfall and background would have turned a nice blue/cyan. We still use a similar methodology today for people, especially with off-camera strobe.
Cheers- and safe steps!

Wild Light

Slow shutter speed gets my vote. For some reason the milky water looks so much better in photos. Mind you I do also love seeing un-natural shots with really dramatic colours

I really like that shot yours yours above too tazz

Heres a couple of mine