river

matt gleason · Jan 4, 2015

hi new here just figured i would share a few of my photos two are of the river this morning 5 second exposure. the other is a picture i got of the orion nebula both taken with nikon d3200. sorry about the nebula being in the wrong section didnt see an astrophotography page any input would be awesome on the river!!!

The_Traveler · Jan 4, 2015

I think the first is the best composition but there looks to be significant motion blur.
8 seconds is fairly long unless you do everything you can to damp down the camera - good sturdy tripod and head tightened down, mirror locked up, hands off shutter release.
You shot at f22 which probably induces some diffraction in the kit lens.
if you look at the online dof calculator on DOFmaster.com, you'll see that even at f11, at 18 mm focal length, you can focus at the hyperfocal distance and everything will be in focus plus you'll have the benefit of a sharper f stop and a shorter exposure time.

matt gleason · Jan 4, 2015

well i was kinda going for the blur. with the flowing water. in new to day time long exposure im only used to night time with astrophotography. but i was going for the misty blurry water thats why such a long exposure. was also using 2 nd filters stacked for a 6f stop nd filter. now that you know i was going for the blur any new suggestions.

matt gleason · Jan 4, 2015

was also on a tripod and shot with a remote

The_Traveler · Jan 4, 2015

the blur in the river is great but the blur in the branches - less so.
And you will get the same blur of the river at 2 seconds (and probably at .5) that you will at 8 seconds.

matt gleason · Jan 4, 2015

The_Traveler said:
the blur in the river is great but the blur in the branches - less so.
And you will get the same blur of the river at 2 seconds (and probably at .5) that you will at 8 seconds.

i agree you can get a decent blur in the river at 2 sec. this river is flowing pretty slow this time of year i was trying to get a longer trailing blur not just the rapid. i tried a shorter exposure and it just wasnt what i was looking for as for the branches we were in the middle of a snow storm and i rushed out there in the middle of a 20 min brake in the snow so it was pretty windy i didnt personally notice the blur in the branches till you said something. i imagine it was a combo of poor settings and the 20mph wind. now i like the blur i was getting at 5 and 8 sec what should my fstop have been for an exposure that long

matt gleason · Jan 4, 2015

this image was shot at 1/5 sec f36. this was my first atempt at getting a blur on water i had no nd filters was just experimenting got a nice blur out of it but it was moving very fast

The_Traveler · Jan 4, 2015

I truly know zippo about your camera lens quality but you were shooting at f22 at iso 100 for 8 seconds.
Since the shutter speed and the aperture are both important, you could leverage the legs of the exposure triangle.
Use DOFmaster to estimate where you should focus and what the most open f stop to get everything in focus.
You want a f stop where everything you want is in focus and where the lens is also really sharp. (usually around f8)
Shoot on manual, set the shutter speed to 2 seconds to get the blur, set the aperture to f 8 (or f11,whichever one works according to DOFmaster) then raise the iso and/or remove the neutral density filter) until the meter shows a decent exposure.
What you are aiming for is f stop where the lens is sharp, shutter speed where you get the blur you want and iso that is OK for your sensor.

The_Traveler · Jan 4, 2015

On that second picture you posted, you could easily take one picture for the water, then without moving anything change exposure and get the rocks well exposed and then blend the two images.