Blurring Moving water

[nrjask]

I was wondering if someone could teach me a way to blur water with the Canon Digital Rebel. I want the water to look silky like I often see in pictures of streams, etc. I am not sure exactly how to do it. Thanks.

[elfyrulz]

lower your shutter speed and use a tripod to prevent your camera from shaking.

[dn7elson]

I was wondering if someone could teach me a way to blur water with the Canon Digital Rebel. I want the water to look silky like I often see in pictures of streams, etc. I am not sure exactly how to do it. Thanks.

Slow shutter speed & tripod. Around 1/2 to 2 seconds depending upon water speed would be a start.

[Flyball Rebel]

I was wondering if someone could teach me a way to blur water with the Canon Digital Rebel. I want the water to look silky like I often see in pictures of streams, etc. I am not sure exactly how to do it. Thanks.
No problem really nrjask, it's a slow shutter speed that you want. Find yourself a waterfall and take a series of shots starting at, say 1/50 sec., then take several more shots, each time at a slower shutter speed. Just keep taking until you find the effect you want. Of course, at these very slow speeds you will need a tripod or some form of support. Good Luck. :) [F.R.]

[nrjask]

I read several posts about not being able to lower the shutter speed too much because of overexposure. Is this a problem with the Digital Rebel or is the f stop range pretty high?

[Lamplight]

I blur water all the time with my DRebel. Unless it's really sunny and your trying to hold the shutter open for several seconds, you should have no trouble setting a small enough aperture to prevent overexposure. I have several water shots in my Webshots gallery that were 1+ second exposures with the DRebel. Some have accused me of "over silk-ifying" one shot in particular. :lol: To each his own. :D

[Flyball Rebel]

I read several posts about not being able to lower the shutter speed too much because of overexposure. Is this a problem with the Digital Rebel or is the f stop range pretty high?
Here is a shot just to give you some idea, the water was running very fast and it was a very dull day , but it gives you an idea. The shutter speed was 1/25 sec, Aperture f/22, ISO 100, DRebel. Good Luck in your water shots. [F.R.] :) P.S This was a hand-held shot and I don't hold a camera as still as I did some years ago! :(

http://www3.sympatico.ca/flyball_2/images/water.jpg

[Jim_T]

I read several posts about not being able to lower the shutter speed too much because of overexposure. Is this a problem with the Digital Rebel or is the f stop range pretty high?

If you set your camera in Tv mode....... As you slow down the shutter, the camera will compute the best aperture size to use.. As the shutter speed decreases, the aperture gets smaller.. Your limit is the minimum aperture (or maximum f setting) of your lens.. Usually around f/22 to f/32 depending on the lens. Overexposure occurs when you continue decreasing the shutter speed and the camera can no longer compensate because it can't make the aperture smaller.

Bright direct sunlight on white cascading water can sometimes be a problem. Make sure you are using your slowest ISO (ISO 100).. Also.. neutral density filters can be added alone or in combination to block light which will provide the equivalent of a few more stops. If you don't have a neutral density filter, a polarizer can sometimes work in a pinch....

[12345Michael54321]

Ah, an opportunity to share a few of my photos. They were taken with a Canon G3, not a Digital Rebel, but the principles are pretty much the same.

Both pictures were taken using a Bogen 3001 (Manfrotto 190) tripod, the G3's built-in 3-stop neutral density filter, a B+W 3-stop neutral density filter (mounted via Canon's LA-DC58B conversion lens adapter), and Canon's WL-DC100 infrared remote controller (to trip the shutter).

The 6 stops of neutral density filtration were necessary to permit the long shutter speeds required to portray the flowing water in the manner I wanted, even in the overcast conditions that prevailed, and even at the camera's lowest ISO.

And at such shutter speeds, the use of a tripod is mandatory. (I prefer my Bogen 3036, but used the 3001 because it's much smaller and lighter, and I was going to be doing some hiking.)

The IR remote was used to trip the shutter because I wanted to minimize camera shake. Tripping the shutter by hand can cause camera shake. (Tripping the shutter via a self timer, particularly combined with mirror lock-up, can work well, too.)

ISO was 50, and exposure mode was manual.

Location was Bushkill Falls, in Pennsylvania. Date was 13 June 2003.

All shots were captured in RAW format, converted to 16-bit TIFF, very lightly modified/enhanced using Paintshop Pro, then squeezed down into small JPEGs. (It's faster and easier than it sounds.)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mzimmet/falls/photos/falls4.jpg
8 sec. @ f/5.6 (That's 8 seconds. Not 1/8 sec.)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mzimmet/falls/photos/falls3.jpg
4 sec. @ f/6.3 (That's 4 seconds. Not 1/4 sec.)

[elfyrulz]

^^ awesome pix :shock:

[DocFrankenstein]

Use Neutral density filters. Decreasing the aperture won't help you much on a bright day.

[robertwgross]

12345Michael54321, those were excellent examples of silky water.

---Bob Gross---

[KBMphotography.com]

10s/f22 - without a tripopd but rested on rocks!!!!

(not reccommended.....was sweating on the mk2 going splash once...!)

http://www.pbase.com/image/30649047.jpg

[Kinger]

Here this was also taken while partially resting on rocks while wondering around Central Park. And this was taken with the DRebel.

http://www.fototime.com/93E018A5B21D3A3/standard.jpg

[robertwgross]

Compare some of the photos offered here. The ones by 12345Michael54321 were using a rock-solid tripod, not a pile of rocks. Do you see the difference the tripod made?

---Bob Gross---

[Kinger]

I agree with Robert completely. There were so many times I wish I had my tripod with me while I was taking shots, but it was so inconvient to carry. So now I have a backpack with a place for my tripod or monopod, so I won't be without it again.

[roanjohn]

Pray for an overcast day to shoot waterfalls..........

I usually do my hike around noon......on the way back, when the sun is low, I set up my tripod and shoot waterfalls/running water. I think thats usually the best time to capture these type of shots without overexposing anything.

And remember to take lots of shots!!! Use MLU to make sure everything is nice and sharp...........or your timer.

:-)

rO1

[Lamplight]

Use Neutral density filters. Decreasing the aperture won't help you much on a bright day.

Yeah, I once tried it on a bright sunny day with no ND filter (since I don't have one) and well, let's just say it was useless. :lol:

Edit: BTW, great pictures people! :)

[ScottW]

I live in the sunny Arizona desert. I wish I could FIND some running water (other than my faucet)! 8)

I am driving up to Durango, CO this weekend & hope to see more water there. I am certainly going to take my tripod.

[Ken Fong]

Ditto for the ND filters...they work great on bright days or situations like an open bay. It will make your picture look both silky and even misty if the waves are kicking.

[scott stokes]

which nd filter would you use ?THOSE ARE GREAT PICTURES !

[12345Michael54321]

Do you see the difference the tripod made?
Well, I've long been of the opinion that a quality tripod is one of the most valuable, and least appreciated, of all photographic accessories. Least appreciated by casual picture-takers, at any rate - serious and experienced photographers tend to give it the respect it deserves.

No, it's not always convenient to lug around a tripod, and there are certainly many types of photography where a tripod's inappropriate. But even so...

Wide range zoom lenses sell. High capacity CF cards sell. Even expensive camera bags sell. But tripods sit on store shelves gathering dust. And when they are purchased, much of the time they're the $14.95 Walmart specials.

Finally, I would add that in addition to holding the camera steady for long exposures, a solid tripod is also a great aid in precise framing. (As most large format photographers are aware.)

[12345Michael54321]

which nd filter would you use ?
In terms of brand name, my ND filters are B+W, however there's nothing magical about that brand, and some other manufacturers produce excellent filters, too.

If you mean which strength of ND filter to use, that depends on the situation. There's no 1 ND filter that's inherently right, any more than there's a single shutter speed or f-stop which is inherently right. It all depends on how much light you've got, and what it is you want to accomplish.

But if you can only buy one, and you have absolutely no idea what strength to get, consider a 3-stop ND filter. Simply because if you already have a polarizer, you can use it in a pinch as a nearly 2-stop ND filter. So between the polarizer, and the 3-stop ND filter, you'd be able to choose between 2 stops, 3 stops, or 5 stops (the two filters combined) light attenuation. (I'd prefer a single 5-stop filter, to stacking a pair of filters, but this won't prevent me from stacking filters when necessary.)

I'm tempted to buy one of B+W's 20-stop ND filters, one of these days. So that if I find myself on Mercury, at high noon, I'll still be able to make the rivers of flowing molten lead look all silky. :)

[scott stokes]

thanks 12345michael54321. i have alot to learn thanks for info.

[Ken Fong]

I use hitech (85mm) filters from Adorama or B&H Photo. They fit in Cokin holders, but I usually hand hold them. They come in .3, .6, .9, and 1.2 densities which are 1, 2, 3, and 4 stops respectively. If you just buy 1,2, and 4, you can combine them to form stops 1 thru 7.

[ScottW]

Well I did see some running water in Durango, CO this weekend. Here is my first posted shot in this forum.

AWB, ISO 100, f/22 at 5 seconds.

I did have my tripod but no ND filter. If it had been a little more cloudy I could have had a longer exposure.

http://sonoransites.com/images/durangowater.jpg

[droosan]

I have used a 3-stop ND behind a 2-stop Polarizer.

Multicoated B+W's are a wonder to behold in terms of low reflectiveness.

[Malok]

I have to make a confession. I have an addiction to streams and waterfalls. :oops: Far too many of my images have water as their focus.

I have found that my favorite shutter speed for streams and waterfalls is 1/3 or 1/4 second. This gives the misty feel while still maintaining quite a bit of detail. Like most of my landscape photos, I try to take them before the sun rises. If I miss that time, then I either find them in a place which the sun hasn't reached yet or better yet wait for a stormy day, as this makes the colors vibrant. As has already been stated, different ND filters can be used depending on the situation. The other thing that really helps is a polarizer. This can remove some of the reflection and bring out the color of the rocks, plants, and bottom of the stream. Without a doubt, a tripod is an absolute necessity at slow shutter speeds. Here is an example of one I took this last weekend. You can tell that this was taken on a dark cloudy day. If you are looking for ideas, you can find a lot of different types of waterfalls on my website listed below.

Malok

http://morninglight.us/cnp/forum/chasm3.jpg