Eight Mile River

[KarinaB1970]

Just shot this a couple hours ago. Made this my picture for my Picture A Day project and thought I would share. :)

http://Galleries.smugmug.com/photos/12915159-M.jpg

large image can be seen here:

http://galleries.smugmug.com/gallery/304870/1/12915159/Large

[marie]

that's absolutely beautiful Karina

[sparker1]

Very nice photo. Doesn't even look like winter there.

[KarinaB1970]

Very nice photo. Doesn't even look like winter there.
Thanks, Marie :)

Thank you too, Sparker. It was actually in the upper 30's out, MAYBE 40 when I took the shot. There is a bit of ice along the river bank but just here and there. There is much more up by the falls due to the spray and all. We should be getting just a bit of snow tonight but Im not holding my breath for a white Christmas LOL

Happy holidays to you!

[wolverinesr1]

beautiful picture. i have to agree about it not looking like winter there.as i sit here staring at weatherbug telling me its 7 degrees outside here in michigan

[Moniphoto]

Love this picture
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moniphoto
Power Shot A95
Canon AE-1

[boomer1959]

Very nice Karina :)
It's a peacefull looking place

[Ballen Photo]

It's a LOVELY photo Karina. Upper thirties? Sure cant tell.
Love the way I can see the water swirls in the river. :cool:

-Bruce

[stoneylonesome]

Never got to see the one without the snow and Ice, very nice shot. do like the snowy one the best (I think). Well I've bumped this up so maybe more can tell which one they like (snow or no snow) :lol: :lol: :lol:

[KarinaB1970]

Never got to see the one without the snow and Ice, very nice shot. do like the snowy one the best (I think). Well I've bumped this up so maybe more can tell which one they like (snow or no snow) :lol: :lol: :lol:
I just really like the flat glass-like appearance of the water at the bottom of the picture...and the swirls that show movement. I am not sure if I like this one or the snowy one better. This does better at a wider angle because of that, I think.

[dewmuw]

I really like those swirls too - give a real sense of movement to the water.

[jads]

agreed..the foreground water almost looks solid, like chocolate or a marble floor !

Karina, would you mind posting camera settings with your shots? cheers. Just Av \ Tv, ISO etc....

[KarinaB1970]

agreed..the foreground water almost looks solid, like chocolate or a marble floor !

Karina, would you mind posting camera settings with your shots? cheers. Just Av \ Tv, ISO etc....
Sorry about that! I dont always remember to post all the info, here it is:

ISO 100, F22, 4 second exposure, 28mm on Canon 10D :)

[stoneylonesome]

Sorry about that! I dont always remember to post all the info, here it is:

ISO 100, F22, 4 second exposure, 28mm on Canon 10D :)

Handheld, right! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: now that's steady

[KarinaB1970]

They don't call me Steady Freddy for nothin'! LOL Just kidding...used my new 488RC4 ball head (still getting used to it) on my Bogen 3021...not that you cared for all that info ;)

[stoneylonesome]

They don't call me Steady Freddy for nothin'! LOL Just kidding...used my new 488RC4 ball head (still getting used to it) on my Bogen 3021...not that you cared for all that info ;)

No I like the info, a good tripod set up is high on my list. Now using a cheapy that I picked up in Wally World. not bad real light but a little shakey. I just don't use them as much as I should so I tend to forget about getting a new one and spend to much time dreaming about new lenses :lol: :lol:

[jads]

Sorry about that! I dont always remember to post all the info, here it is:

ISO 100, F22, 4 second exposure, 28mm on Canon 10D :)

thanks Karina... any reason you went with 100 ISO as opposed to 2 or 400? Just curious. Even with as high as 400, there's not too much noise, I've found - would have shortened your exposure time :)

[KarinaB1970]

thanks Karina... any reason you went with 100 ISO as opposed to 2 or 400? Just curious. Even with as high as 400, there's not too much noise, I've found - would have shortened your exposure time :)
Hi Jads,

Well, for one if I went with a shorter exposure I wouldn't have gotten the smooth effect of the flowing waters, or the swirls in the front that shows the movement in the water. If I didnt have these water effects in the shot, I think it would be rather bland and not much to look at.

200 ISO would probably be fine, but 100 gives better results as far as color, etc. When I first got the camera, the photographer that I purchased it from told me to always shoot in 400 (he did, and his shots are superb however he also shot in raw...maybe that is the difference??)...that was a mistake for me as there was more noise than I would have liked to have had. You are right, there isnt a ton even at 400 ISO, but I do a lot of late day and evening shots and they were coming out way to pixelated. I wont say I never use 200 or 400, but I prefer 100 in most situations. :)