A few long exposure water shots, C+C please

[cbrown222]

i took these at Ridley Creek State Park the other day. I think the exposure was 15 seconds with f4.2. the ISO was set at 100.

C+C would be great.

1.

2.

3.

 

[jdong217]

I like them. The second one seems to have been a tad overexposed - maybe an nd filter would've helped? I'm no expert though

 

[cbrown222]

I like them. The second one seems to have been a tad overexposed - maybe an nd filter would've helped? I'm no expert though

I agree. I'm a super noob so I have noooo idea what a nd filter is, let alone a filter.
Thanks

 

[RyanUpchurch]

I like them. The second one seems to have been a tad overexposed - maybe an nd filter would've helped? I'm no expert though

I agree, the ND filter would've reduced the washed out look of some parts of the image. In addition, a Circular Polarizer could have been helpful as well because they allow you to see into the water by reducing the surface reflections (same as the CP glasses that fishermen use). Just my take though... hope this helps.

And a filter... is an attatchment that threads onto the front of most legitiment lenses. It is a rather thin layer of glass with specific properties to provide a desired effect. Typically they are cheap (under $100), unless you are looking for professional filters, or your lens filter size is massive. Some decent brands that I've used are Tiffen and Hoya. Hope this helped as well.

 

[iamroyce]

I love this. Nice one! Great image. Have you thought of selling this kind of stuff?

 

[cbrown222]

I love this. Nice one! Great image. Have you thought of selling this kind of stuff?

Thanks, I've never thought of selling them but I might eventually, I'm only 15 so it's more of a hobby for me

I like them. The second one seems to have been a tad overexposed - maybe an nd filter would've helped? I'm no expert though

I agree, the ND filter would've reduced the washed out look of some parts of the image. In addition, a Circular Polarizer could have been helpful as well because they allow you to see into the water by reducing the surface reflections (same as the CP glasses that fishermen use). Just my take though... hope this helps.

And a filter... is an attatchment that threads onto the front of most legitiment lenses. It is a rather thin layer of glass with specific properties to provide a desired effect. Typically they are cheap (under $100), unless you are looking for professional filters, or your lens filter size is massive. Some decent brands that I've used are Tiffen and Hoya. Hope this helped as well.

Thanks, I'll look into filters and CP's soon. What do you mean about the surface reflections? How do you notice them with the exposure this long?

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

I quite like them... I feel the color of the fallen leaves is a bit yellow... But, maybe that's just my eyes...

 

[patrickdio]

I like the first one a lot.

As others have mentioned, an ND grad (neutral density graduated filter) would have been great for #2

And I also agree with BuS_RiDeR, #2 and #3 have yellowish tints that don't look very nice.

 

[cbrown222]

I like the first one a lot.

As others have mentioned, an ND grad (neutral density graduated filter) would have been great for #2

And I also agree with BuS_RiDeR, #2 and #3 have yellowish tints that don't look very nice.

I don't know how you guys notice that, your eyes are aamazing.

Thanks, I'll look into getting some filters

 

[patrickdio]

I don't know how you guys notice that, your eyes are aamazing.

Thanks, I'll look into getting some filters

Hmm superhuman eyes could be a possibility but more likely your computer monitor may not be tuned correctly for accurate colour.

 

[j-digg]

15 seconds at f/4ish? Mustve been some really low light, but yeah the last 2 seem a bit bright, you could shorten the exposure some and still get the same look actually... an exposure of even ~1second should give the water a similar smooth look.

 

[cbrown222]

15 seconds at f/4ish? Mustve been some really low light, but yeah the last 2 seem a bit bright, you could shorten the exposure some and still get the same look actually... an exposure of even ~1second should give the water a similar smooth look.

It may have been around f8 ish but i'm sure it was 15 s

 

[Hickeydog]

15 seconds at f/4ish? Mustve been some really low light, but yeah the last 2 seem a bit bright, you could shorten the exposure some and still get the same look actually... an exposure of even ~1second should give the water a similar smooth look.

I think the f-stop was much lower than 4, probably around f/13, possibly higher. If these were taken during the daytime (which I'm assuming they are), then they'd have to be f/22 with a 1 second shutter. I remember cursing myself for not having some ND filters when I shot a very nice waterfall after a huge flood. I just couldn't get the shutter speed long enough. 100 ISO, f/22, and it still didn't give a long enough shutter speed.

But as far as the photos go, the first one is very nice. Excellent composition.

 

[cgipson1]

EXIF data shows the following for those interested

#1 Aperture: F29 Shutter: 4 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual
#2 Aperture: F22 Shutter: 10 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual
#3 Aperture: F25 Shutter: 10 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual

 

[j-digg]

EXIF data shows the following for those interested

#1 Aperture: F29 Shutter: 4 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual
#2 Aperture: F22 Shutter: 10 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual
#3 Aperture: F25 Shutter: 10 seconds ISO: 100 Program: Manual WB: Manual

Bah, always forget to grab the EXIF viewer...