# Water drops - my first attempt  c&c please



## Dubaiian (May 18, 2012)

Hello Everyone, 

Still a relative newbie, but with the summer temperatures approaching 45 degrees C here its time to move inside and find things to shoot in the house.   I have read a lot about these shoots and tried to utilise as much of the advice as possible but I still think that these need improvement, comments and advice welcome.  




All shot with my 7D and 24-105mm with an extension tube to let me get closer.  Colour comes from a cheap filter set on the front of the camera.  Had a 430Ex on camera with a 580EX off to the side through a diffuser.   Took me forever to actually capture the drops rising, but once I realised that the water source has to be quite high, it was just a matter of getting faster and faster shutter times until it worked.


----------



## Cpi2011 (May 18, 2012)

Just amazing shoot i am so wonder after visit your post. You have done really excellent work looking so great drops....


----------



## Buckster (May 19, 2012)

These are always fun to do.  Good job for your first try.


----------



## 888Photography (May 20, 2012)

Water drops and droplets are one of my favorite things to take photos of. What shutter speed did you end up using on these?


----------



## Dubaiian (May 21, 2012)

888Photography said:
			
		

> Water drops and droplets are one of my favorite things to take photos of. What shutter speed did you end up using on these?



I started around 1/500th which was not too successful, but I gradually upped the light until I could get a good exposure at 1/2000th on a smallish aperture (f11).   This produced drops but occasionally OOF.   The best results were achieved at 1/4000.  

I had two speed lite (front and side) and also use the on camera flash to balance it out.  

Hope it helps.


----------



## Jaemie (May 21, 2012)

Amazing clarity. How did you achieve those colors and why? There's nothing wrong with them, I'm just curious. I've never attempted this and know nothing about such photography.


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2012)

The first thought of folks who want to give this a try is that they need a fast shutter speed.  Not true if they have a speedlight, and actually, a longer shutter can work even better.  I know... Sounds crazy, right?  Hear me out...

Do it in a darkened room (just enough light for you to see what you're doing), bring your aperture down tight to get lots of DOF, open your shutter speed up to an even longer shutter, and use the flash's stopping power to freeze the action instead of the shutter.  A speedlight on low power can hit speeds of up to 1/30,000th of a second, which your fastest shutter speed can't compete with.

In addition, if your shutter is already open, you won't get any vibration from mirror slap when you trigger the flash to take the shot, which means it's going to be even more rock-solid frozen.

Yes, that means you need a way to trigger the flash instead of the shutter, independently, but that's not so tough.  You just need a cheap set of triggers, and you're good to go.

You might still not believe me, so here's an example of some that I've done: My shutter time on these is 4 seconds long each, with an aperture of f/22: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/265618-drip-drip-drip.html

Here's another example of some that I did; Milk shot with a shutter speed of 2 seconds long each: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/178920-milk-drops.html

Have fun with it!


----------



## Jaemie (May 21, 2012)

Buckster said:


> You might still not believe me, so here's an example of some that I've done: My shutter time on these is 4 seconds long each, with an aperture of f/22: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/265618-drip-drip-drip.html
> 
> Here's another example of some that I did; Milk shot with a shutter speed of 2 seconds long each: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/178920-milk-drops.html



Beautiful!


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2012)

One more example: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/263856-splish-splash.html

That's a mixture of water and milk, shutter speed again at 4 seconds long.


----------



## caveman (May 21, 2012)

Brilliant job for a first attempt - continue!


----------



## Dubaiian (May 21, 2012)

Jaemie said:
			
		

> Amazing clarity. How did you achieve those colors and why? There's nothing wrong with them, I'm just curious. I've never attempted this and know nothing about such photography.



Hi Jaemie, the colours are actually a coincidence of my new filter system arriving on the same day.   I was bored, could not go out (summer middle east heat) so just started playing.   They are simple gel filters in front of the lens.   

Good advice from Buckster on the long exposures, reckon I will try that next time


----------



## Bynx (May 27, 2012)

Buckster you are quite right about longer shutter speed, small fstop, and using a flash as your light source. Your examples are impressive but you dont explain that you didnt take the pictures. Its all done mechanically by an expensive machine. You push the button to start the process, but everything else from the drop(s) falling to the firing of the camera are all done by the machine. Its physically not possible to create a double drip and umbrella manually. I dont know who manufactures your machine, but the one Ive seen is called StopShot which can be googled. It cost $500.


----------



## Buckster (May 27, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Buckster you are quite right about longer shutter speed, small fstop, and using a flash as your light source.


Yes, I know, not just from experience, but from every other photographer out there who's successfully doing this sort of work.



Bynx said:


> Your examples are impressive but you dont explain that you didnt take the pictures.


That comes off as rather insulting, frankly.

Yes, I _*DID*_ take the pictures, thank you very much.  Just because someone uses triggers to make a photographic task easier or more precise doesn't mean they're not the ones taking the pictures.  I put a lot of time and effort into setting up every aspect of these shots.  You don't just plug in a machine, push a button, and stand back while it sets everything up from the liquid delivery system and bowl placement to the lights and gels and snoots and reflectors and diffusers arranged from underneath to overhead on booms and so forth, to the background, to choosing the lens and body, aperture, ISO, shutter, and dialing in a focal point.  It doesn't pick out the timing either.  You have to work that out and experiment until you get it right, just like when you're timing your drips from a dripping plastic bag hung overhead, which I've done as well.



Bynx said:


> Its all done mechanically by an expensive machine. You push the button to start the process, but everything else from the drop(s) falling to the firing of the camera are all done by the machine. Its physically not possible to create a double drip and umbrella manually. I dont know who manufactures your machine, but the one Ive seen is called StopShot which can be googled. It cost $500.


It actually can be done, but it takes a lot more patience and luck to set up, time and catch two drips colliding in a completely mechanical manner, rather than using pumps and triggers.

But the method for precisely shooting the exact moment to capture two colliding drips isn't the point.  The point is how BEST to shoot drips, whether it's one, two or more, in order to get the very best DOF, lighting, AND freeze them solid, and that BEST method is the one I outlined, using the flash rather than the shutter.

So, to recap, it's the same process for single drips, where you don't need the more precise timing or a machine or much preparation or luck even to get the two drops to collide.  All you need is to get them dripping with a rhythm (like from a plastic bag hung overhead) and then fire the flash at the appropriate moment, rather than trying to fire the shutter at the appropriate moment

The formula remains the same: Low ambient light, long shutter, fast (low power) flash, and you simply decide when to fire the flash, rather than when to fire the shutter button.

Timing is everything, either way, whether you do it by setting up a rhythm with the drips, or whether you use a machine to generate them on cue.


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

Setting the background for its color and focusing the camera on a spot you know the drop(s) will fall is one thing. But if a machine decides when to take the picture that is something else. Ive taken a lot of drop shots and I too decide the colors used in water and lighting, focusing and composition but its my hand on the button, and I decide when my finger is going to push the button. When I give up that control to a machine then there is something different. While I can claim to have taken the image, I didnt really, and there is no one to say I didnt. I have built a very precise water dripper and have spent many hours trying to get an umbrella drop pic. I say it cannot be done manually. But a friend of mine has the StopShot and he can do it every time. So I have an issue with pics taken by a machine. Especially if it is something that cant be done by human hands. Technically you can say you took the pic Buckster. But there is something ethical I see wrong with that idea.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

One could make much the same argument about all your HDR stuff.  It was created by a machine, not you.

Sorry if you have ethical issues with that sort of thing, but glad that I don't. I'd probably seek counseling if such things bothered me, but that's just me.  To me, it's just hair-splitting and, again, rather insulting in the delivery, from my POV.  Life's too short for that, IMHO.

But all that aside, it strays from the actual point, which is to help folks understand the method best used to get water drip shots: Trigger the shutter or trigger the flash?  Definitely the flash, hands down.

Live long and prosper, and make the best of trying to accept those things others do that can't physically hurt you!


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

Buckster dont get me wrong, I like the shots you posted, but when I get my own StopShot I will at least give credit to the machine which took the picture. Its a little misleading if you fail to mention the machine and lead people to think you are some kind of creative genius with the quickest finger on the planet. As for my HDR shots, you are absolutely right. I couldnt create them without the use of Photomatix and Photoshop. But the exposures I used were all taken by me, manually. Also I do acknowledge my use of the software and give them the credit they deserve. On a final thought, I think your hostility to me, arises from my letting the cat out of the bag.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Buckster dont get me wrong, I like the shots you posted, but when I get my own StopShot I will at least give credit to the machine which took the picture. Its a little misleading if you fail to mention the machine and lead people to think you are some kind of creative genius with the quickest finger on the planet.


Using any of the many various triggers, from sound triggers, to pressure triggers, to IR triggers, to laser triggers, to speed calculation triggers to light triggers to simple slave triggers for the many, many, MANY kinds of photography they're used for, especially specialized photography, is nothing new, nothing misleading and nothing to accuse someone of being unethical about using.  Anyone who pursues such photographic endeavors quickly finds that such solutions are the norm.

They are simply tools that a photographer uses to get the shots they want and to make the tasks easier to perform, like any other of the many tools we use to make compelling photos.  It's no more unethical than setting up artificial lights and modifiers, snoots and grids, gels and gobos, and all the rest of it to make it look like our model is being lit by a large window with an interesting lace covering, when in fact there may be no window in the room at all.

We will simply have to agree to disagree that I, or anyone else who uses any of the many triggers out there, is unethical, misleading or "not the photographer" of the images they create using such varied methods.  You can say they are all those things if that's your take on it, while I say they're not.  No skin lost on either side.

In closing, I will also point out that, when asked for details, I have never been shy about revealing my techniques and providing full disclosure, and have always been willing to share full details with all.  These are links to specific posts of mine in those same threads where I did exactly that:

Page one of one of the threads I linked to: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/265618-drip-drip-drip.html#post2419107

On page two of one of the same thread as above: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/265618-drip-drip-drip-2.html#post2419357

Page two of another of the threads I linked to: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/178920-milk-drops-2.html#post1736587

So much for your "cat out of the bag" theory.

If that's not enough to satisfy you on the whole disclosure issue, and your accusation that I'm trying to lie to people and mislead them and convince them that I have the fastest trigger finger on the planet, then I just don't know what to tell you, and tbh, it's not really concerning me very much.


----------



## jwbryson1 (May 29, 2012)

I always enjoy your images Buckster.  Thanks for the info.  I have a couple of questions:



Buckster said:


> if your shutter is already open, you won't get any vibration from mirror slap when you trigger the flash to take the shot



By the above quote, do you mean that these should be done in "live view" so that the mirror is locked up?  I don't follow.




Buckster said:


> My shutter time on these is 4 seconds long each, with an aperture  of f/22.




On this issue--are you taking multiple shots?  I don't quite grasp how the long SS works.


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

Ok, now to the nitty gritty. I recently lost out to an umbrella shot such as those you posted. I dont mind losing, but not to a machine. Im thinking seriously about getting a StopShot gyzmo, because Im always shooting things that interest me. Things like stop action, high speed stuff, super macro, HDR etc. But when its not me that decides when to take the pic, well that bothers me. Just to start something in motion and watching a chain of events take place with no intervention takes the joy of a nice shot like those umbrella ones. After rereading through your site I went back and tried some more drop shots. I did get an interesting effect using low light and the flash during a longer shutter speed. I got a trail as the ball of water moved either up or down. It was faint but worth the effort. I want to thank you for your explanation on the ethics of machine pictures. Its a very fine line Im talking about and I feel that when a machine decides when to take the picture then that line is crossed. There should be a special category for shots that are taken like that. In the case where I lost out, the pic was actually underexposed, and slightly out of focus. But the judges were impressed on seeing that unusual umbrella shot and didnt judge it on its actual technical qualities, not understanding how easy that shot is if you have the expensive machine. Have you the option to shoot high speed like a bullet or pellet piercing a water filled balloon or a light bulb?


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> I always enjoy your images Buckster.  Thanks for the info.


Thank you kindly.  Always glad to help if I can.



jwbryson1 said:


> I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I almost never use live view, other than for shooting through my microscope.

What I mean is that when you trip open the shutter, there's a short period of vibration from that action.  If you don't actually shoot the photo during that vibration period, you will avoid any camera shake and blur that it might cause.

The idea is that you dial in all your variables; ISO, aperture, shutter and focus.  Dial them in and lock them down so they can't move.  Darken the room and open the shutter.  If there's no light, that shutter could be open indefinitely, and nothing would show up in the photo.  But, if at any time while it's open a flash were to suddenly go off, you now have a photo, and it doesn't matter when that happens while the shutter is open.

So, you don't have to be viewing through the camera's viewfinder or even live view.  You just have to be paying attention to the drips, timing them as they drip (or being unethical and using a machine that does all the work, if you have Bynx's mindset, LOL), and then firing that flash at the moment of the splash.  The interesting thing is that you can see it when you catch it, even before it comes up in the chimp-view on the back of the camera, because the suddenly bright splash burns it into your retina for the split second it fires.

So, that means the room isn't deep-cave-can't-see-your-hand-in-front-of-your-face dark, just dark enough so that you can use a long shutter without overexposure, but just light enough that you can see what you're doing.  Allowing your eyes to adjust to the dimness can help.



jwbryson1 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > My shutter time on these is 4 seconds long each, with an aperture  of f/22.
> ...


See above.

  Imagine you're in a dark room, with no light at all coming in from anywhere.  You can't see a thing.  You open the shutter, and leave it open for 4 seconds, or 30 seconds, or a minute, or five minutes - doesn't matter - you leave it open for a long time.  During that time, there is still no light at all in the room.  What do you get as a result?  A photo of black nothingness.

But fire a flash at ANY time during that long exposure, and what do you get?  Whatever was going on in front of the lens at the precise moment when the flash went off.  If there was a splash taking place, that's what you get a photo of.

Basically, by using the long exposure in a dim room, you take the shutter speed out of the equation, allowing the flash to freeze the action.

Hope that helps.  Keep asking if you have any other questions!  I'm an open book and will help if I can!


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Bynx said:


> After rereading through your site I went back and tried some more drop shots. I did get an interesting effect using low light and the flash during a longer shutter speed. I got a trail as the ball of water moved either up or down. It was faint but worth the effort. I want to thank you for your explanation on the ethics of machine pictures.


You're very welcome.  I'm always glad if I can help in any way.



Bynx said:


> Have you the option to shoot high speed like a bullet or pellet piercing a water filled balloon or a light bulb?


Yes, I've got a whole range of sensors and triggers I've acquired or built over time, including a couple that work with projectiles and sound, which are both commonly used for those types of shots.  I intend work on some of those this summer, actually.


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

With your suggestion to do a slower shutter speed the room I was in wasnt quite dark enough so it left a feint trail as the ball moved up. With the fstop at f22 I couldnt get the proper exposure. But it sure made getting it sharp. Here is an example from today's attempt.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Bynx said:


> With your suggestion to do a slower shutter speed the room I was in wasnt quite dark enough so it left a feint trail as the ball moved up. With the fstop at f22 I couldnt get the proper exposure. But it sure made getting it sharp. Here is an example from today's attempt.


Very nice!  Glad that's working well for you.  You'll have it perfected in no time now!  I must say, I rather like that faint trail thing - makes it more interesting!


----------



## Ernicus (May 29, 2012)

That image of your setup is pretty extensive.  Makes me feel silly trying to hold a glass of milk over a bowl of water and capturing a drop when it hit.  LOL.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> That image of your setup is pretty extensive.  Makes me feel silly trying to hold a glass of milk over a bowl of water and capturing a drop when it hit.  LOL.


No need to feel silly - that's pretty close to the way I first tried to get these kinds of images too!  You just learn new methods and pick up tips and gear over time, if you like it enough to stick with it.


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

Buckster please check out this site....Liquid Drop Art - Photography by Corrie White

They are all a result of the machine. Can you explain some of the more elaborate shapes. Some I dont understand at all.


----------



## Buckster (May 29, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Buckster please check out this site....Liquid Drop Art - Photography by Corrie White
> 
> They are all a result of the machine. Can you explain some of the more elaborate shapes. Some I dont understand at all.


Yeah, that is some really awesome stuff and I've seen some of the setups over the years.

The cloudy, wispy looking stuff is captured underwater, using a speaker and an osciliscope underneath the tank's bottom to excite inks, dyes and so on at the bottom of the tank, which makes them "jump" in patterns, depending on the frequencies generated.  It's done out in the air as well, and you can tell which is which just by the look of them.

The multiple splash/umbrella/mushroom looking shapes above the surface is done with as many as several drip pumps and timers all working in concert in just a crazy complicated array of a setup that takes a PILE of patience to put together and fine tune to finally get them to make that sort of stuff.

A big part of the "secret" to both is that the various fluids used are of varying viscosity, with some being the consistency of water, others the consistency of oil.  That makes them react differently from one another upon impact, and really amps up the interest.

Guar gum is popular for thickening water to varying degrees to do that, and clear ethylene glycol based coolant is also used a lot for those shots because it's kind of syrupy and holds together well even after impact, making those interesting and elongated umbrella-like structures.


----------



## Bynx (May 29, 2012)

The artistic aspects are so various it makes me think that the machine will be a good investment. Sorry for pushing your buttons but I wanted to be convinced it was a good thing. It still does cross that line to me, but the artistic creations are done by the machines owner. Thanks Buckster.


----------



## Rodz (May 29, 2012)

Very nice


----------



## Buckster (May 30, 2012)

Bynx said:


> The artistic aspects are so various it makes me think that the machine will be a good investment. Sorry for pushing your buttons but I wanted to be convinced it was a good thing. It still does cross that line to me, but the artistic creations are done by the machines owner. Thanks Buckster.


No worries man!  Always glad to help if I can!  All's well that ends well!  :thumbup:


----------

