Photographing streams???

I have seen some photographers using up to 10-stop ND filters, however it seems to me that if you need to stop down more than the two stops your polarizer provides, you probably are shooting at the wrong time of day. Just throwing a dark cover over the scene doesn't make up for bad light.

jacknimble wrote in post #9014844
I have seen some photographers using up to 10-stop ND filters, however it seems to me that if you need to stop down more than the two stops your polarizer provides, you probably are shooting at the wrong time of day. Just throwing a dark cover over the scene doesn't make up for bad light.

Stopping down 2 stops is no where near enough for some scenes.

Lots of scenes are best compositionally when the light is coming at a particular angle (cliffs/ rocks/ trees etc) so to wait for "better light" at another time of day doesnt work. Take Argyles photo - it wouldnt be possible at another time of day - so what then?

Take a reasonably sunny day in a valley or a forest- Using ISO100 (lowest possible ISO on a low of cameras), f11 (much more and diffraction becomes a big problem on some cameras) and shutter speed of 1/100. That gives you a reasonabe exposure for the light in the scene overall.
However you want to blur the water so you need a longer exposure.
3 Options (while maintaining the same exposure):
1) Narrower aperture - oops diffraction is becoming a problem.
2) Wait until later when the light isnt as strong - oops its behind the trees/ over the horizon and its way too dark for the rest of the scene.
3) Longer shutter speed - sounds fine.

So slap on a polariser and bingo - 2 stops. So we have gone from 1/100 to 1/25. Damn that water is still getting frozen - no where near the milky texture i wanted.

What next?

Only option is to use an ND filter. Think of the stops to get from 1/100 to 1 sec - 1/100 >1/50 >1/25 >1/10/ >1/5 >1/2 >1 sec = 6 stops. Way more than a polariser can achieve. polariser (2 stops) + ND(4 stops) = bingo! 6 stops.

this was my first stream attempt:

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …32588448_5f9167​0b49_b.jpg

maybe should have used my B & W polorizer, but given it was so cloudy, I thought it might be too dark.

my question was "how much blur is enough on a stream?"

this thread gave me lots to consider

cheers

jimmy_racoon wrote in post #9078715
this was my first stream attempt:

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …32588448_5f9167​0b49_b.jpg

maybe should have used my B & W polorizer, but given it was so cloudy, I thought it might be too dark.

my question was "how much blur is enough on a stream?"

this thread gave me lots to consider

cheers

That is an aesthetic question that only the person shooting can decide unfortunately. One persons idea of perfect will vary with anothers. I tend to prefer getting it so its just milky as opposed to the near blown out white some people end up with.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9078925
That is an aesthetic question that only the person shooting can decide unfortunately. One persons idea of perfect will vary with anothers. I tend to prefer getting it so its just milky as opposed to the near blown out white some people end up with.

Agreed!

I'm struggling with the blown-out white under most lighting situations. Plan to go with the polarizer next time. I've seen everything from 1/3 to 5 second exposures with varying results. My goal currently is to simulate the movement of the water, while giving an appreciation for the surrounding environment.

This was my first B & W since the lighting killed most of the color anyway...
Canon XSi, 70-200mm f/4 L IS, 1/4 shutter with f/29, no filter.

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …32521368_fd9d51​9657_b.jpg

To me that amount of blur looks good, that's how I am to get my waterfalls to look. However, it seems like the picture as a whole is underexposed, and maybe lacking some contrast (you's have to look at that once the exposure was corrected).

What I do is I ussually expose once for the water and once for the surrounding scene. Then I combine these in post. And I always use a polarizer, even if it is a little dark outside.

Joe

jsc230 wrote in post #9080340
To me that amount of blur looks good, that's how I am to get my waterfalls to look. However, it seems like the picture as a whole is underexposed, and maybe lacking some contrast (you's have to look at that once the exposure was corrected).

What I do is I ussually expose once for the water and once for the surrounding scene. Then I combine these in post. And I always use a polarizer, even if it is a little dark outside.

Joe

great tip, Joe...thanks!

I have a Canon XSi and it has a bracketing option that takes 3 pictures at once.
I'll give that a go as well as the polarizer...

thanks again

I have found that between a half second and a second works well most of the time. I haven't never been able to make extra long exposures look good, but I have seen some by other photographers. I guess it has to do with the location.

jimmy_racoon wrote in post #9081691
great tip, Joe...thanks!

I have a Canon XSi and it has a bracketing option that takes 3 pictures at once.
I'll give that a go as well as the polarizer...

thanks again

Another trick is to take a long exposure and then, without changing the camera position, open the aperture a bit more to shorten the shutter speed, then snap another pic. Opening the aperture will let you photograph the water to capture the rivulets (instead of just a blob of cotton candy looking water). Blend the two images...this will give you some silk at the base of the water and also the rivulets as it spills over (DOF is not really a concern since all you'd be interested in would be the water).