Woodland Stream

[Meerkat17]

One of these shots is to be used for a magazine article about a "Woodland Stream" The area is under threat of development and the article will be used to highlight the beauty of the area.

The author has choosen the first image (which is also my choice) but is still unsure between the two, any input you can add to help the deciding factor would be invaluable. A critique on the images also wouldn't go a miss either.....http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

http://www.btinternet.com/~David.Lewins/g5/images/_MG_0812.jpg


http://www.btinternet.com/~David.Lewins/g5/images/_MG_0813.jpg

Regards
David

[Conk]

The images are nice and like you I like #1. What were your settings? Ithink that the "silk" effect is a bit overdone.

[Meerkat17]

Ooop's forgot to add the exif data
Both Shots
Shutter speed: 0.4 sec
Aperture: 16
ISO: 200
Focal length: 18mm

[Conk]

Ooop's forgot to add the exif data
Both Shots
Shutter speed: 0.4 sec
Aperture: 16
ISO: 200
Focal length: 18mm

Your settings suggest that you shot these a lot slower than necessary to get the silk effect. It is just my personal preference that I like to shoot to get this effect at the fastest possible shutter speed. I try to keep as much detail in the water while getting the candy floss look.

[Radtech1]

David,

Greetings, how are things in the UK? Rain here in Los Angeles.

Just a couple of comments. First one is a technique that I have seen used to get some wonderful results. No personal experience, though. Assuming that the shot is a tripod shot and you want to avoid the "candy floss" look mentioned by Conk you could try a blended exposure. Shoot one at, oh, 1full second or so - this will get you the creamy smooth look of the water. Shoot another at a much shorter exposure time (<1/100th) to get the texture of the water. Layer them in PS. I wish I remember where I saw it done but it came out great.

Second comment is more of a Subject Intent/Results comment. You say the article is regarding a "Woodland Stream" - well both of the shots here could be appropriately titled "Stream". Not enough Woodland. Perhaps a wider (much wider) FOV to show the stream in the context of the woods. It seems that almost a fisheye would be a possible choice for the subject at hand. Follow that with a nice Velvia Action processing and I think you might end up with a lush, inviting photo that tells more of "the whole picture".

Rad

[iwatkins]

#1 is the better shot, more foreground interest, has an organic diagonal and you can actually see more of the actual woodland the image is supposed to help protect.

Personally, with that brief I would reshoot (if possible) the #1 shot but just zoom out more to get more of the surrounding woodland in.

Cheers

Ian

[Turbowolf]

Both look good ... but I'd go to a vertical format if possible, then include the trees. It's not a forest without the trees.

Unfortuantely since it's winter in the northern hemisphere, no leaves, but the starker look could give a subliminal hint at the coming devestation. Maybe add some more streambed in the shot, or perhaps shifting the POV to the other side of the stream and getting closer to the ground to shoot into the trees on the hill.

just my quick thoughts

[Meerkat17]

Thanks for all the input/suggestions.
Today was rather overcast, I have some shots which include more of the woodland but the problem of the sky burning out was annoying me. I plumbed for a lower angle and for both of these shots I was very much in the stream (I know I was, as I got wet feet to prove it, when the water went over my wellies!) it is quite deep and fast moving and I have several shots which are blured because of the water moving/shaking the tripod.

The shot itself can be taken again as the images are not required until the end of the month and the area is not far away. After all the suggestions you have all given me I think a second trip should hopefully give me what's required.

I always seem to get water wrong with too much "silk" perhaps I will make this my project for the month till I get it right.:)

Thanks again.
David

[iwatkins]

Get yourself a graduated neutral density filter to avoid the sky blowing out. Do everything else the same but include the trees and sky but use the ND grad to stop te sky blowing out.

Cheers

Ian

[Meerkat17]

Thanks for the advice Ian, something which I hadn't thought about...I may just do that.

Any advice on which ND filter and strength to go for? Should I consider the Cokin system?

David

[iwatkins]

Hi David,

If this is something you are only going to do a couple of times, then yes, go for the Cokin system. difficult to say which filter to go for, but would suggest you have the ND2 (121L), ND4 (121M) and ND8(121S) soft grads in your bag. It looks like a wide angle lens you are using so you would need a filter holder and an adaptor ring for that lens. Being wide angle I would suggest you would need at least the 'P' sized system. (Cokin: http://www.cokin.com/). Being fairly cheap and made of resin these are not actually totally neutral, i.e. they are known as gradual grays, so you need to shoot in RAW as you will get a slight colour shift that you might want to dial out later.

If this is something you will do quite a lot of then I strongly advise you invest in the Lee filters system. The quality of the filters are a lot higher and the filter holder system is much more adaptable with things like hoods being available and their ND filters really are ND with no colour shift at all etc. Not cheap but will last a lifetime. (Lee Filters: http://www.leefilters.com/home.asp)

Cheers

Ian

[Meerkat17]

Ian, Thanks again for the further info, there are always situations where I find that I'm losing the sky detail and whilst I always shoot in raw if I go for the Lee Filters then its going to be less post-processing in the long-run.
Thanks again everyone for all the help.
Regards
David

[iwatkins]

Hi David,

Glad I could help. :)

Yes, when I first started out with digital I thought I could use multiple exposures and Photoshop to sort these problems out. However, even spending a lot of time on it it never looks (to me) as good as getting it right in the field.

I'd rather spend 5 minutes messing about in the field with filters and what not to get the perfect shot than 20 minutes on the computer and getting an imperfect shot. :D :D

As an aside, I had about 35 different Cokin filters that I used to use when shooting various film. But since going digital and now using Lee filters I only have bought seven filters, and most of the them are grads of some sort as I don't need colour shift filters anymore as I *can* do that in Photoshop. So going with Lee won't be that expensive.... much :)

Cheers

Ian

[lomond]

Hi David,

Glad I could help. :)

Yes, when I first started out with digital I thought I could use multiple exposures and Photoshop to sort these problems out. However, even spending a lot of time on it it never looks (to me) as good as getting it right in the field.

I'd rather spend 5 minutes messing about in the field with filters and what not to get the perfect shot than 20 minutes on the computer and getting an imperfect shot. :D :D

As an aside, I had about 35 different Cokin filters that I used to use when shooting various film. But since going digital and now using Lee filters I only have bought seven filters, and most of the them are grads of some sort as I don't need colour shift filters anymore as I *can* do that in Photoshop. So going with Lee won't be that expensive.... much :)

Cheers

Ian

I couldn't agree more.
That's exactly what I'm looking at now.

Cameron