Photographing streams???

I have recently started photographing streams in the Smoky Mountains, with pretty good results. I have been trying to shoot with no direct sunlight, and small aperture to get a slow shutter speed. What I am trying to figure out is why my photos look so flat. They are good, but I am going for great. Here are some examples.

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 503 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Robert,

First thing to do is use a polarizer, it appears that you aren't (I see reflections on the water in the second photo). This will do 2 things, first it will remove reflections off of the water and anything wet. Second it will boost your saturation. The polarizer will also act as a nuetral density filter as well. Then you won't have to stop your lens down as much (unless you need the DOF).

The other thing you can do is play around with some post processing. In photoshop you could do the "lab color" trick. I'm at work now so I can't explain it in too much detail, but I bet a google search would turn up some hits. Also, playing with curves could help with the contrast, again google could help here. I will try to remember to get back here tonight after I get home and add more details. Also, if you allow editing people could actually edit your photos and show you their results.

Joe Conklin

What Joe said about the polarizer is dead on. Also some simple levels and curves adjustments will help your photos pop.

Thanks for the tips. I have been meaning to buy a polarizer for my new lenses. I'll put that on the top of my list.

One other thing you might want to consider, and this is just my opinion, is that some times the water can look too willowy. I took a ton of pictures of a stream awhile back and kept pushing the shutter speed lower and lower and lower until it was just a big white mess. In the end I was happiest with a modicum of flowing water but you could see the rocks as well. Just a thought.

Edit: Some examples that I took of said stream. I like them but maybe not everyone will

markol wrote in post #8954042
One other thing you might want to consider, and this is just my opinion, is that some times the water can look too willowy. I took a ton of pictures of a stream awhile back and kept pushing the shutter speed lower and lower and lower until it was just a big white mess. In the end I was happiest with a modicum of flowing water but you could see the rocks as well. Just a thought.

I agree. If you're shooting water, it should look like water -- not fog or smoke. I know, "different strokes..." but I never did understand why many prefer the "fog machine" look.

jsc230 wrote in post #8953513
Robert,

First thing to do is use a polarizer, it appears that you aren't (I see reflections on the water in the second photo). This will do 2 things, first it will remove reflections off of the water and anything wet. Second it will boost your saturation. The polarizer will also act as a nuetral density filter as well. Then you won't have to stop your lens down as much (unless you need the DOF).

The other thing you can do is play around with some post processing. In photoshop you could do the "lab color" trick. I'm at work now so I can't explain it in too much detail, but I bet a google search would turn up some hits. Also, playing with curves could help with the contrast, again google could help here. I will try to remember to get back here tonight after I get home and add more details. Also, if you allow editing people could actually edit your photos and show you their results.

Joe Conklin

gonzogolf wrote in post #8953522
What Joe said about the polarizer is dead on. Also some simple levels and curves adjustments will help your photos pop.

The polarizer will also help you to "see" below the surface of the water...comes in handy if your scene happens to have submerged rocks in somewhat shallow water. Another thing to consider is that there will be times when you don't want the polarizer to remove reflections from the water...sunlight reflecting off cliffs will usually light up the surface of the water with various colors from the cliff faces, and nearby foliage. All depends on the 'look' that you're after.

This was shot with a polarizer to control (not eliminate) the gold reflections of morning light from the cliff faces, EXIF was f/16, ISO 100, at 0.2 seconds:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

markol wrote in post #8954042
One other thing you might want to consider, and this is just my opinion, is that some times the water can look too willowy. I took a ton of pictures of a stream awhile back and kept pushing the shutter speed lower and lower and lower until it was just a big white mess. In the end I was happiest with a modicum of flowing water but you could see the rocks as well. Just a thought.

To get the silky effect, you'll need to get your shutter speed down to about the 1/2-second range, give or take. But it all depends on what one is after, and the conditions at the time. Too slow of a shutter speed, you'll end up with cotton candy-looking water, and nine times out of town it'll be blown out. Some silk, with some rivulets of water to show motion, is a good combination to shoot for in general. The above shot has some silk, but still shows the water rivulets, conveying motion and force. As stated, the shutter speed was 0.2 seconds...you don't need to go overly slow to get the silk look.

One last thing to be aware of when shooting streams and waterfalls...depending on the conditions, slow shutter speeds will sometimes cause the water to appear blue due to reflected light from the sky (as happened in the above pic). This can be easily removed with a saturation layer or selective color adjustment layer (which I did before I printed this image).

What grade ND filter do you guys recommend?

tuaz0090 wrote in post #8973813
What grade ND filter do you guys recommend?

I think a 2 and a 3 stop are the most useful. Each company calls it something different.

tuaz0090 wrote in post #8973813
What grade ND filter do you guys recommend?

If you already have a good polarizer, don't waste your money on a 2-stop ND filter...the polarizer will do double-duty and provide almost 2-stops of light reduction, in addition to the polarizing effects. A 3-stop and 6-stop ND filter should cover you for most situations (but it all depends on the lighting conditions at the time).

argyle wrote in post #8974158
If you already have a good polarizer, don't waste your money on a 2-stop ND filter...the polarizer will do double-duty and provide almost 2-stops of light reduction, in addition to the polarizing effects. A 3-stop and 6-stop ND filter should cover you for most situations (but it all depends on the lighting conditions at the time).

True, I was assuming he would use the polarizer and the ND at the same time. I can't think of a time when I just use a ND filter without my polarizer. A 6 stop and a polarizer would give really long exposures, if you are shooting at the best time (ie. cloudy/rain or the magic hours). Although, a 6 stop plus a polarizer would be nice for midday cloud motion. I guess it all depends on what and how you plan to shoot.

Joe Conklin

thanks

tuaz0090 wrote in post #8975457
thanks

Not a problem. So here's some food for thought...take a look at the Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo filter. This filter is a warming polarizer combined with a variable ND filter that will give you anywhere from 2 to 8 stops of light reduction, depending on how much you dial in. It could be considered expensive (about $390) and it is. But when you factor in the cost of a high quality polarizer as well as the cost of several high-quality ND filters, you're pretty close to the price of the Variable filter (plus, you only need to toss a single filter into your bag). The variable is only available in 77mm filter size, so just ignore this recommendation if your lenses don't require this filter size. For filters that are smaller than 77mm, the price usually drops considerably.

Might try HDR techniques as well...seems to work well with water...
Jim