Winter scene "creek"

Here's my first try at winter scenery and one photo was a test but didn't wor out too well.


1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Generally, when on sees the word "winter", expectations of ice and snow come to mind. There is neither in these shots-- except for the snow flakes which are easy to miss. The first one was taken on a day with flat light, which is sometimes tough. It's bit overexposed (no black shadows), low contrast, and the sky is blown out.

And what was it you were testing in the second one?

joedlh wrote in post #6667468
Generally, when on sees the word "winter", expectations of ice and snow come to mind. There is neither in these shots-- except for the snow flakes which are easy to miss. The first one was taken on a day with flat light, which is sometimes tough. It's bit overexposed (no black shadows), low contrast, and the sky is blown out.

And what was it you were testing in the second one?

I was trying to turn the water in to that fog "blur shot"

and I've should have used my 430 ex flash right?

By the way that's for the C&C mate I'll keep working on these.

DerekRob wrote in post #6667501
I was trying to turn the water in to that fog "blur shot"

and I've should have used my 430 ex flash right?

Was the water running? It looks pretty static to me. From the look of the snowflake tracks, you got the blur motion. However, you needed to close down the aperture to offset the longer exposure. Also, you need a tripod or a firm support when trying to blur motion.

I don't think the flash would have been helpful in these shots. The action looks to be too far away for the flash to be useful. Also, the scene projects away from you. Using a flash in this situation would cause over exposure closer to the camera and under exposure farther away.

joedlh wrote in post #6667570
Was the water running? It looks pretty static to me. From the look of the snowflake tracks, you got the blur motion. However, you needed to close down the aperture to offset the longer exposure. Also, you need a tripod or a firm support when trying to blur motion.

I don't think the flash would have been helpful in these shots. The action looks to be too far away for the flash to be useful. Also, the scene projects away from you. Using a flash in this situation would cause over exposure closer to the camera and under exposure farther away.

Yes the water was basically still, it was moving a little bit though. And thanks once again for the tips I will remember that for further testing.

you can't really get the blurry effect with water that's not moving, and to do it, you need a long shutter speed... with water this still, that'd be several seconds. given the light, you'd need a neutral density filter and a small aperture to cut down the light enough to let the shutter work. closing the aperture won't "offset" the longer exposure shutter.. it will help cause it. however, a loooong exposure with snow falling would give you some pretty long "tracks" from the snowflakes as well.

the flash wouldn't do anything except light up the snowflakes.

don't expect to get much when it's actually snowing... the light is usually dull and flat, the sky will usually blow because of the long shutter speeds (unless you use a grad ND filter, and then you'll just get dark gray), and the whole image will generally be pretty drab. if you can get out after the snow stops, preferably on a day that's not completely overcast, you can get some great shots, as long as you're careful not to let the snow itself blow out...

squirl033 wrote in post #6669817
you can't really get the blurry effect with water that's not moving, and to do it, you need a long shutter speed... with water this still, that'd be several seconds. given the light, you'd need a neutral density filter and a small aperture to cut down the light enough to let the shutter work. closing the aperture won't "offset" the longer exposure shutter.. it will help cause it. however, a loooong exposure with snow falling would give you some pretty long "tracks" from the snowflakes as well.

the flash wouldn't do anything except light up the snowflakes.

don't expect to get much when it's actually snowing... the light is usually dull and flat, the sky will usually blow because of the long shutter speeds (unless you use a grad ND filter, and then you'll just get dark gray), and the whole image will generally be pretty drab. if you can get out after the snow stops, preferably on a day that's not completely overcast, you can get some great shots, as long as you're careful not to let the snow itself blow out...

Can I get one of these filters for my tameron 17-50mm?

If I add clouds to my best one of the 4 it will look a heck of a lot better?

#3 is horribly overexposed.

egordon99 wrote in post #6672144
#3 is horribly overexposed.

don't you mean #2? Oh yeah I guess it's #3 sorry, And I know I was trying to get that foggy look with water but ooh well thanks bro.

Lyhiam

I quite like #1.its has a soft feel to it.I also had it as a B&W?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Flo wrote in post #6672527
I quite like #1.its has a soft feel to it.I also had it as a B&W?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Hi Flo, No it didn't have a b&w to it but it does now LOL.