First Shots with my Lee Big Stopper

So earlier this spring I was able to get out and get to some of my fav spots and try out my new Lee Big Stopper. Not used to 3 minute exposures, but man what a difference! I just can't decide if I like this shot in color or b&w, and how or if to crop. I'll be the first to admit these aren't the BEST composition, I mistakenly didn't take out the big stopper till I had been doing some shots, and it was starting to rain and couldn't stay to take a ton more 3 minute exposures.

#1 - How should I crop this, or should I? I do think the leaves at the bottom are a bit distracting.
f/10 at 3 min exposure, ISO 100

On number one I would crop just above that underwater log. I think that foreground doesn't quite fit with the rest of the photo, the stream flowing into the front (bottom) of the photo seems like the real foreground. Think I probably like the last photo best.

You should try using the Big Stopper on different subjects other than waterfalls. The Big Stopper is an extremely hard filter to use for waterfalls due to the simple fact that exposure times will be (like you learned) very long. When shooting waterfalls, ideal exposure times will only be a half second to a few seconds long. Any longer than that and you begin to lose crucial details in the water flow.

If you really want to get into waterfall photography, try a CPL in the shade and your results will be dramatically improved.

For me, the long exposures in waterfall photography instantly kill the potential due to the loss in detail.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be more than happy to help you out!

JM,

I appreciate your comments, but I will respectfully disagree (about exposure length). I've been shooting waterfalls for over 6 years, so I have a good grasp on shooting them (shade, CPL, etc). All of these shots are using a CPL. No way I could get close without it. On your exposure length, I think if you can maintain detail in the water, who cares? I did a version of #1 at like 1 sec, and compared to my pictured above, and the stream looks awful. I love the silky smooth affect it gives me for the stream. I would agree with you that the longer the shutter speed, it would blow the highlights in the water (which I'm not). I maintain detail and don't have any highlight clipping. Plus I think its subjective.

As for the subject, this just happened to be the first thing I'm shooting (so of course I will be trying others). I tried a sunset, but I didn't have my reverse ND grad yet I couldn't get the exposures right. I am going to the NC coast and mountains in Oct, so it will get more use and I will get to work with it more.

I do appreciate the comments.

JM Photos wrote in post #17086868
You should try using the Big Stopper on different subjects other than waterfalls. The Big Stopper is an extremely hard filter to use for waterfalls due to the simple fact that exposure times will be (like you learned) very long. When shooting waterfalls, ideal exposure times will only be a half second to a few seconds long. Any longer than that and you begin to lose crucial details in the water flow.

If you really want to get into waterfall photography, try a CPL in the shade and your results will be dramatically improved.

For me, the long exposures in waterfall photography instantly kill the potential due to the loss in detail.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be more than happy to help you out!

patrick j wrote in post #17086862
On number one I would crop just above that underwater log. I think that foreground doesn't quite fit with the rest of the photo, the stream flowing into the front (bottom) of the photo seems like the real foreground. Think I probably like the last photo best.

Patrick,

Thanks for the comment. Yea I wrestled with it, and to get it out I have to get extreme with the crop. if I keep a 3x2 ratio, I think I loose too much from the screne. But I think I like a 1:1 crop. How's this?

Much better. In most cases I prefer color to b&w, and that is true here too. There are some scenes where B&W is better, maybe in more austere landscapes, I don't think this is one of them.

I also like to maintain the original aspect ratio, but the primary consideration is what crop gives the best picture, so sometimes you just need to do the free form crop. Unless printing it's probably not a huge deal.

JM Photos wrote in post #17086868
You should try using the Big Stopper on different subjects other than waterfalls. The Big Stopper is an extremely hard filter to use for waterfalls due to the simple fact that exposure times will be (like you learned) very long. When shooting waterfalls, ideal exposure times will only be a half second to a few seconds long. Any longer than that and you begin to lose crucial details in the water flow.

If you really want to get into waterfall photography, try a CPL in the shade and your results will be dramatically improved.

For me, the long exposures in waterfall photography instantly kill the potential due to the loss in detail.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be more than happy to help you out!

Totally agree. I had to learn this the hard way. The Big Stopper is a terrific filter, but too much for waterfalls. You want to retain some detail to make it work. A CPL is a great starting point.

ncphotoguy wrote in post #17087410
JM,

I appreciate your comments, but I will respectfully disagree (about exposure length). I've been shooting waterfalls for over 6 years, so I have a good grasp on shooting them (shade, CPL, etc). All of these shots are using a CPL. No way I could get close without it. On your exposure length, I think if you can maintain detail in the water, who cares? I did a version of #1 at like 1 sec, and compared to my pictured above, and the stream looks awful. I love the silky smooth affect it gives me for the stream. I would agree with you that the longer the shutter speed, it would blow the highlights in the water (which I'm not). I maintain detail and don't have any highlight clipping. Plus I think its subjective.

As for the subject, this just happened to be the first thing I'm shooting (so of course I will be trying others). I tried a sunset, but I didn't have my reverse ND grad yet I couldn't get the exposures right. I am going to the NC coast and mountains in Oct, so it will get more use and I will get to work with it more.

I do appreciate the comments.

cerett wrote in post #17088295
Totally agree. I had to learn this the hard way. The Big Stopper is a terrific filter, but too much for waterfalls. You want to retain some detail to make it work. A CPL is a great starting point.

Not only are details lost, but the bright and heavy flow areas will be blown out. All though your shots above aren't terribly bright, shots 1, 2, and 3 are borderline overexposed in the middle of the flows. Shot 4 is good though!

JM Photos wrote in post #17088303
Not only are details lost, but the bright and heavy flow areas will be blown out. All though your shots above aren't terribly bright, shots 1, 2, and 3 are borderline overexposed in the middle of the flows. Shot 4 is good though!

JM, I totally understand, but this waterfall was in high flow this day (Spring time plus some rain), and was difficult to keep detail whether I used the big stopper or not. I had to do multiple edits in exposure and highlights to get the detail before it started turning gray. It's a balancing act ... sometimes you can't get a perfect full details shot due to flow you know? Hence why #4 was so easy, Big stopper or not .

Anyway, appreciate the comments.

JM Photos wrote in post #17086868
You should try using the Big Stopper on different subjects other than waterfalls. The Big Stopper is an extremely hard filter to use for waterfalls due to the simple fact that exposure times will be (like you learned) very long. When shooting waterfalls, ideal exposure times will only be a half second to a few seconds long. Any longer than that and you begin to lose crucial details in the water flow.

If you really want to get into waterfall photography, try a CPL in the shade and your results will be dramatically improved.

For me, the long exposures in waterfall photography instantly kill the potential due to the loss in detail.

Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be more than happy to help you out!

Most times (during the brightest part of the day) I find a CPL and a 6-stop ND work very well. My only disagreement with your response is your assertion regarding exposure time. Perhaps we can agree that while you're there, use a wide range of shutter speeds. Often 1/2-a few seconds works. But I'll bet most have had good results straying far from that guideline. Often, a 15 to 20 second exposure works for me, but recently I used as short as 1/100 and the image looked good. With digital "film" being so cheap, it makes sense to try many different things.

#4 does it for me.

In the first (and its variants) the waterfall is strictly centred in the frame and the water comes directly at you, so it doesn't generate this dynamic, flowing sensation I'd look for in a waterfall. Also, there isn't enough landscape context for me.