Tried my hand at waterfalls...

Pixel9ine · Sep 21, 2005

Took this picture over the weekend; the waterfalls are a smidgen underexposed, but as you can see the bg is already blown out.. what to do?

f/8.0, 1/8sec, -2.0 exp. compensation (and I think some ND filters would've been useful for this kinda thing...)

LaFoto · Sep 21, 2005

My very question - all my attempts to capture "rushing waters" have so far given me overexposed pictures. Some on here have suggested I photograph through sunglasses in case I haven't got any filters (which I don't have). Next time I plan to capture falling water (not much to be found where I live, see this to understand: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30191), I ask my son to give me his polarising sun glasses!

But hey, apart from the blown-out top part, this one is quite nice!!! Nicer than all of mine!

JTHphoto · Sep 21, 2005

i have a lot of shots like this too, i find the best environment for waterfall photos is cloudy days. Overcast is best, otherwise you have to be patient and wait for a cloud to block out the big fireball in the sky :sun:. As LaFoto suggested, filters can help too.

Big Mike · Sep 21, 2005

Set your aperture to the smallest possible. F22 or something close to that will really help you get slower shutter speeds.

For a shot like this, don't worry about the background...it's in sun while the water fall is in shadow...you will never get both to look right in one exposure. You can either let the background be blown out or just don't include it in the frame.

Pixel9ine · Sep 22, 2005

LaFoto said:
My very question - all my attempts to capture "rushing waters" have so far given me overexposed pictures

Out of the 20 or so that I took (I just practicing, anyway), this was the only one to turn out okay. Without any filters, all I can suggest is to reduce everything you can - close the aperture, reduce ISO; I chose to neg. compensate the exposure somewhat too- and open the shutter for as long as possible. If I invest in some ND filters, it should allow me to open the shutter for much, much longer than I actually did.

My only question is this: I have a wide-angle converter with 72mm front treads; should I buy expensive 72mm filters, or just stick with 52mm and forgo the wide shots?

JTHphoto · Sep 22, 2005

Croesus said:
My only question is this: I have a wide-angle converter with 72mm front treads; should I buy expensive 72mm filters, or just stick with 52mm and forgo the wide shots?

i don't know how a wide-angle converter works, but if it's threaded, why can't you use the 52mm filters and put the converter on those? I've stacked as many as 3 filters/accessories before. Otherwise this is a question that only you can answer. If your rich buy everything, if your not, like me, buy generic 52 mm filters...

Pixel9ine · Sep 23, 2005

JTHphoto said:
i don't know how a wide-angle converter works, but if it's threaded, why can't you use the 52mm filters and put the converter on those? I've stacked as many as 3 filters/accessories before. Otherwise this is a question that only you can answer. If your rich buy everything, if your not, like me, buy generic 52 mm filters...

Thanks for the reply.. I have little/no experience with filters, do you suggest threading the filter on between the camera and the wide-angle adapter?

I ask becuase I've read that 'mounting a filter between the lens and the camera causes a change in the path difference between the CCD chip and the lens and results in the image not being focused properly at the camera sensor plane.' What has your experience been with this?