Fuzzy Waterfall, how to...

Original katomi · May 24, 2019

Ash, have fun
You are doing just what I believe in. That is taking photos that please you, good on you.
Most of my photography is so different that people and judges don’t allways understand it.
For my waterfall/river shots I started at 1 /500 sec and took pics at slower and slower shutter speeds
Out of all the pics I then choose the one I like best
Looking forward to your milky way

Ash Telecaster · May 25, 2019

I tried to get the Milky Way last night. It wasn't the best night for it. It was kind of hazy and even rained a little. I got lots of pictures of stars but no sign of the Milky Way.

This is a picture from a little earlier after the clouds moved in. To my eyes it was very dark out. Amazing what these cameras can do with low light.

Original katomi · May 25, 2019

Nice pic

zaroba · May 29, 2019

For a fuzzy waterfal you just have to start with a fast shutter and gradually reduce the speed until you get the outcome you like. All waterfalls are different so basically have to use trial and error to find a speed that yields the best effect for the waterfall you're at.

Shutter speed 1/200

Shutter speed 1/50

Shutter speed 1/25

ronlane · May 29, 2019

Derrel said:
Shutter open time.... from 1 second to 15 seconds...the rendering of the water is quite variable, depending on both shutter time and water flow/speed.

This works but you can also shoot a number of shorter shutter images and combine them in PS and use the mean function and get a similar effect.

Soocom1 · May 29, 2019

BTW in the other thread on tripods... THIS is why!

Slow shutters mounted on a tripod will yield the image you want.

A play with color and light, use of ND filters and the like will all aid in the effect.

ronlane · May 29, 2019

Since some will want to know how here is a video and one example that I did of 9 images.

stapo49 · May 29, 2019

ronlane said:
Since some will want to know how here is a video and one example that I did of 9 images.

View attachment 173864

Thanks for posting that. I am going to give it a try and see how it turns out.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Ash Telecaster · May 29, 2019

ronlane said:
Since some will want to know how here is a video and one example that I did of 9 images.

View attachment 173864

Wow, Ron, that is spectacular. I can't wait to try it!

You may have just sold a copy of Paint Shop. You should get a commission!

That dam photo is awesome.

Thank you very much!

I have a question. With that awesome inventory of lenses, if aliens invaded and destroyed all camera lenses but you could save just one, which would it be?

A second question. Are there other photography things worth exploring besides the obvious. Like maybe infrared photography or fish eye lenses or anything else?

Ash Telecaster · May 29, 2019

zaroba said:
For a fuzzy waterfal you just have to start with a fast shutter and gradually reduce the speed until you get the outcome you like. All waterfalls are different so basically have to use trial and error to find a speed that yields the best effect for the waterfall you're at.

Shutter speed 1/200
View attachment 173861

Shutter speed 1/50
View attachment 173862

Shutter speed 1/25
View attachment 173863

Nice, great examples Zoroba.

Thank you!

wfooshee · May 29, 2019

No idea of the settings, I shot this in 1978 or 79, and EXIF wasn't exactly a thing..?

I think it was Kodachrome 25, which gave me room for longer shutter in full daylight, like 1/30 or even 1/15 at f:16, the smallest aperture the camera I used had on its lens. I'm not sure where the original is, this is a recent scan of a print I had made decades ago, so color-wise, it's quite flat. :blue:

The blown whites and blacks are what you could expect back then, printing from a slide.

The waterfall in the background is an earthen dam about 20 feet high, holding back a small lake, and the foreground is actually a small rock maybe 4 inches high!

So close enough and small enough, ultra-long exposures aren't really needed!!! Too bad nothing shoots at 25 any more! :biggrin-new:

OP asked about fisheye... Those aren't something you can just go out and shoot general photography with, but they are fun to play with.

Here's a shot of my motorcycle, close enough that the mirro at the top of frame is behind the camera. I shot across the nose of the bike, with the horizon centered in the frame to keep it flat, and you can see the ground, and the entire left side of the bike. From about 5 inches away!

This one is looking almost straight up at the trees, and is actually cropped to remove the ground (and my own feet) at the bottom of the frame.

My fisheye is the Rokinon 8mm, for crop-frame cameras, and gives a field of view that diagonally is 180 degrees. If mounted on a full-frame camera, its hood is visible in the image, but it would crop to a circular image.

ronlane · May 29, 2019

Ash Telecaster said:
ronlane said:

Since some will want to know how here is a video and one example that I did of 9 images.

View attachment 173864

Click to expand...

Wow, Ron, that is spectacular. I can't wait to try it!

You may have just sold a copy of Paint Shop. You should get a commission!

That dam photo is awesome.

Thank you very much!

I have a question. With that awesome inventory of lenses, if aliens invaded and destroyed all camera lenses but you could save just one, which would it be?

A second question. Are there other photography things worth exploring besides the obvious. Like maybe infrared photography or fish eye lenses or anything else?

Question 1: Of what I have, which would I keep. That's tough, since I am much more of a sports photog than anything, I don't really have the ONE lens I want, which is a 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8. Of what I have, I am most satisfied with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art lens but the 85mm is really nice too.

Question 2: Honestly, I really want a filter system to do long exposure and landscape stuff. A fisheye would be cool to have for certain shots. I would love to have a macro lens as well, something like the 100mm macro.

If you are dreaming that money was no object, then heck there is a REALLY LONG list of stuff that would be worth my time exploring. lol

I know that is not really helping with it but I've spent the time collecting what I have and while I want more, I don't want to give up anything that I have just want to keep adding.

Derrel · May 29, 2019

Are there other photography things worth exploring besides the obvious.

Lens reversing rings. Free-lensing.

Busting the glass OUT of a cheap teleconverter, to make an extension tube.

Adding a 1.4, 2x, or even an older 3x teleconverter to a Lensbaby. Makes an approximately 75mm-80mm ,100mm-112mm,or 150mm-175mm tele "lensbaby"

Cheap-screw in wide-angle adapter lenses (e-Bay, Amazon,Ali Express).

Inexpensive lens adapters from e-Bay.

Legacy lenses..pawn shops, garage sales, etc..

Old, low-cost gear in "BGN" or "UGLY" condition.

Weird stuff you read about on the web.

Cool new-tech stuff you find out about.

Grandpa Ron · May 30, 2019

Not all waterfalls are created equal and shutter speed depends on the mood I am in.

Since I prefer to go with "as shot" I have no problems with multiple angles and shutter speeds.

That is the biggest advantage of digital, you can shoot 50 pictures the cull the 5 you like. The truth be told, in most cases it is the first five shots I took, before I tried to be "creative."

While I m not a fan of Post Processing but I am a huge fan of the tripod and experimenting with all the whiz bangs and whirly gig found on the digital cameras.

Joseph Hanna · May 30, 2019

Grandpa Ron said:
Since I prefer to go with "as shot" I have no problems with multiple angles and shutter speeds.

That is the biggest advantage of digital, you can shoot 50 pictures the cull the 5 you like. The truth be told, in most cases it is the first five shots I took, before I tried to be "creative."

This is an interesting sentiment and one I hear often. I'm totally with you in that I'm always gonna go with the absolute best "as shot" pic as I can possibly create as it's clearly the primary component of the idea of "creative". It also pains me to no end when I see folks blowing up color profiles (post process) that look like it was shot on Mars. That said however if you're shooting RAW you've gotta have some kind of post processing color profile at very least, if not much more. If if on the other hand you're shooting JPEG you have a ton of post processing simply by taking the pic. It's just done by the camera.

In the end it's part of digital photography and I've slowly come around to the Titanic power go post when used sparingly and properly.