# First go at long exposure waterfall



## James Baranski (Mar 16, 2015)

Hi everyone! I made my first go at long exposure waterfall photography. I picked up a Hoya adj ND Filter. The scene is spring and all the vegetation is naked so I cropped the ugly foliage out. I will go shoot at the same spot in the late spring/early summer for better full photos/ Feedback welcome and remember, this is my first go at shooting and post processing....




5 by Jbaranski111, on Flickr




7 by Jbaranski111, on Flickr





6 by Jbaranski111, on Flickr




2 by Jbaranski111, on Flickr




10 by Jbaranski111, on Flickr


----------



## funwitha7d (Mar 17, 2015)

for me #2 works best but all are quite different, also like #1, 3


----------



## Rick50 (Mar 17, 2015)

Of the lot I like #2 the most but all are too long for my taste. I like a little detail in the water.


----------



## 123rfanna (Mar 17, 2015)

#2 is a nice overall shot while #3 defines the stones a little better..the last 2 seems almost too fantasy like. Good first attempt!


----------



## weepete (Mar 17, 2015)

7 is my favorite, though I really like the rocks in 6. Good job on your first go.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 17, 2015)

I agree that the exposures are a touch too long for my taste. Processing looks pretty good though. exposing too long leads to the waterfalls looking like one big highlight, I try to keep my exposure times between 1/2-2 seconds typically


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I agree that the exposures are a touch too long for my taste. Processing looks pretty good though. exposing too long leads to the waterfalls looking like one big highlight, I try to keep my exposure times between 1/2-2 seconds typically


What are approximate best shutter speed?


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

funwitha7d said:


> for me #2 works best but all are quite different, also like #1, 3


I played around with different saturation to see the results


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

Rick50 said:


> Of the lot I like #2 the most but all are too long for my taste. I like a little detail in the water.


My next run I will use faster shutter speeds. I guess it is trial and error.... Thanks guys


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 17, 2015)

The first and the third are my favorites. There is a really nice aesthetic going on with your choice to crop out the surrounding environment. While I agree with everyone about the shutter speed for the last two I think it works perfectly on the third and if you play with the contrast in the highlights in the waterfall on the 1st and 2nd so that they are similar to the way it is in 3 I think it might make them that much better.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> The first and the third are my favorites. There is a really nice aesthetic going on with your choice to crop out the surrounding environment. While I agree with everyone about the shutter speed for the last two I think it works perfectly on the third and if you play with the contrast in the highlights in the waterfall on the 1st and 2nd so that they are similar to the way it is in 3 I think it might make them that much better.


I will note the shutter speeds on those photos so when I go out next time I will play around with +/- on those settings. I am sure it depends on lighting conditions too.


----------



## qleak (Mar 17, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the exposures are a touch too long for my taste. Processing looks pretty good though. exposing too long leads to the waterfalls looking like one big highlight, I try to keep my exposure times between 1/2-2 seconds typically
> ...



I think shutter speed depends on two factors, the amount of light (you can knock it down with an ND) and the speed the water is flowing. People often neglect to mention or consider the 2nd. 

In my limited experience slower water requires a little bit more time and hence a bit more ND to make sure it's not all highlight. Faster water will require a shorter shutter speed.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

qleak said:


> James Baranski said:
> 
> 
> > jsecordphoto said:
> ...


That is what I was noting... Water speed. Surely there has to be a balance between the water flowing under the fall and the water flowing through it


----------



## qleak (Mar 17, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > James Baranski said:
> ...



That's certainly the trick. 

Of course you could cheat and merge multiple images. It would give you greater control over the highlights and amount of blur since you could mask out the falls from some of the images needed to blur the water.

I found a howto someone did on this a while back but can't seem to find it now :/


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 17, 2015)

qleak said:


> James Baranski said:
> 
> 
> > qleak said:
> ...



I'll be posting an article for the new forum event at some point in the coming months that will describe how to do something similar to this. It's simple really.. You just layer the two images in photoshop after shooting on a tripod and use layer masks to bring out the waterfall. You need to make sure the exposures match perfectly though.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Mar 17, 2015)

or use luminosity masks, which will give you the most control and would probably be the easiest way to mask blown out highlight areas


----------



## mattpayne11 (Mar 17, 2015)

So, for waterfalls it is always personal preference on how silky you want it to look. I like to vary it depending on the mood of the scene, personally. I think it is OK to try both and see what feels better for your vision. You also can always experiment by doing multiple exposures from the same vantage at different shutter speeds, including or excluding ND filters and a CPL (I always shoot waterfalls with CPL, personally)... and blend them in Photoshop manually.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

mattpayne11 said:


> So, for waterfalls it is always personal preference on how silky you want it to look. I like to vary it depending on the mood of the scene, personally. I think it is OK to try both and see what feels better for your vision. You also can always experiment by doing multiple exposures from the same vantage at different shutter speeds, including or excluding ND filters and a CPL (I always shoot waterfalls with CPL, personally)... and blend them in Photoshop manually.


LOL that is beyond my education. I am looking forward to learning


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 17, 2015)

2 & 3 for me   Very nice 1st attemps.


----------



## KmH (Mar 17, 2015)

2 by fore me, if you fix the white balance so the cascading water is white rather than blue.


----------



## sleist (Mar 17, 2015)

I would have loved #1 over all of them had you given the top some room to breath.
As it is, it's a very unnatural border and, as a result, creates a sense of visual discomfort.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

sleist said:


> I would have loved #1 over all of them had you given the top some room to breath.
> As it is, it's a very unnatural border and, as a result, creates a sense of visual discomfort.


Relax Kimosabe, it is a first run on long exposures. Perhaps read the thread..


----------



## sleist (Mar 17, 2015)

Sorry.  I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on.


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 17, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > I would have loved #1 over all of them had you given the top some room to breath.
> ...



Wow.  Do you want honest constructive criticism or someone to blow smoke where the sun doesn't shine?  I agree with *Sleist* that the first image look like it might have potential but the crop is too tight and the foreground has little interest.  You needn't have shot at f/22 here.  The 25 second have flattened the foreground too much so there is no shape to it.  I would look at reshooting looking at focussing a third of the way in at f/8 or f/11 to get the exposure below 10 seconds so the foreground has some shape.  Better still get it under 5 seconds.  

With waterfalls I use half a second as a starting point.  As others have said the optimum exposure time will depend on the flow of water.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> James Baranski said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...


I appreciate the F22 advise. I was thinking the same. If you read the initial post you will read why it was cropped so tight. I am just looking to learn how to take long exposures bud.  Who cares about the border it is a 10 pt thin border anyway. I started the thread to learn how to do this....


----------



## AvianStewardess (Mar 17, 2015)

(I'm new around here)
My thought process:  Where's this person from because that looks awfully familiar?  Oh! Chicago.  Boy, I wonder, being one born-raised-and-matured on Illinois soil (too many towns to list), could it be?

Thanks for putting keywords on your Flickr image.  Waterfall Glen!!!  Ever get a shot of the deer?


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 17, 2015)

AvianStewardess said:


> (I'm new around here)
> My thought process:  Where's this person from because that looks awfully familiar?  Oh! Chicago.  Boy, I wonder, being one born-raised-and-matured on Illinois soil (too many towns to list), could it be?
> 
> Thanks for putting keywords on your Flickr image.  Waterfall Glen!!!  Ever get a shot of the deer?


Not yet, It was my first shoot out there but many years ago i saw many white deer from Argon national labs


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 18, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > James Baranski said:
> ...



No matter what effect you are looking to learn, you still need to make the composition work.  This can be even more critical with water flow.  If there is foliage that gets in the way of an ideal composition, then you need to use your feet and move where there is a better composition.  That being said, where you are using long exposures you will always get foliage moving in the wind.  It's unavoidable.


----------



## mattpayne11 (Mar 18, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> James Baranski said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...



This is one of the hardest things to learn as a new photographer. I used to get actively upset when people would critique my photos, now I openly welcome it. It is the best way to learn, especially if people are willing to go into a lot of detail on how to make it better. I've found now that most people want to be paid to do that these days.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 18, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> James Baranski said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


I am going back in 4-6 weeks when the land is not barren. I live in Chicago so hopefully soon the leaves and vegetation will grow for a wonderful shot. There is NO foliage.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 18, 2015)

mattpayne11 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > James Baranski said:
> ...


I have no problem with this but as the thread started out, I am looking to capture long exposure water. The content and composition will come when I go back. The terrain sucked to be honest.


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 18, 2015)

Ok, but in my view you would have been better not cropping at all, and just saying that you are aware that the area surrounding the subject isn't at its best.  By cropping it, you are making a conscious decision and interpretation of the scene.  Better to have the less than ideal area in than poorly cropped in my view. 

Let me give you another piece of constructive advice that has nothing to do with your shot.  Try not to be as rude as you were to Sleist.  Your tone was out of order in my view.  It's fine to disagree, but when people are giving freely given advice it's generally best you don't speak to them like a piece of dirt on your shoe.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 18, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> Ok, but in my view you would have been better not cropping at all, and just saying that you are aware that the area surrounding the subject isn't at its best.  By cropping it, you are making a conscious decision and interpretation of the scene.  Better to have the less than ideal area in than poorly cropped in my view.
> 
> Let me give you another piece of constructive advice that has nothing to do with your shot.  Try not to be as rude as you were to Sleist.  Your tone was out of order in my view.  It's fine to disagree, but when people are giving freely given advice it's generally best you don't speak to them like a piece of dirt on your shoe.


For heavens sake, I have said at least 5 times... I am not looking for a shot. I am looking to learn how to take long exposure water. Why do you want to make this an epic debate? It is over.


----------



## mattpayne11 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but in my view you would have been better not cropping at all, and just saying that you are aware that the area surrounding the subject isn't at its best.  By cropping it, you are making a conscious decision and interpretation of the scene.  Better to have the less than ideal area in than poorly cropped in my view.
> ...



All due respect, but composition is certainly a large factor in learning how to take long exposure water photographs.


----------



## sleist (Mar 19, 2015)

mattpayne11 said:


> All due respect, but composition is certainly a large factor in learning how to take long exposure water photographs.



Imagine if you nailed one of these shots from the long exposure water perspective - 
But you were left with a tosser due to poor composition.

Always act as if the shot you are taking will be a winner.  Otherwise, you are just wasting your time.


----------



## Sicboi (Mar 19, 2015)

Thank God this is SLR.  The water worked out.  You know what I mean...that Gel looking stuff.


----------



## James Baranski (Mar 19, 2015)

sleist said:


> mattpayne11 said:
> 
> 
> > All due respect, but composition is certainly a large factor in learning how to take long exposure water photographs.
> ...


So why is playing around with the camera's and the Filters settings wasting your time. I have the uncropped versions and the terrain is barren and crappy. What don't you understand? I have stated almost 10 times here that I was learning how to shoot water long exposure. It is rather obvious captain obvious what I intended. Are you here to argue or just want to try to play king of the thread? I also stated I am going back in the late spring.... Any more arguments?


----------



## thereyougo! (Mar 20, 2015)

James Baranski said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > mattpayne11 said:
> ...



You really have an attitude don't you?  Good luck getting any more feedback on images.  You need to learn respect is a two way street.


----------



## Vic Vinegar (Mar 22, 2015)

Great. Now I'm all jealous.


----------



## MikeFlorendo (Mar 22, 2015)

I got offended here once and posted a retort and regret doing it.  If you post a photo and you don't like the critique just ignore it.  If people take the time to respond they care enough to take the time.  Lots of posts have no comments thus no help.  I have learned a lot here and I hope you do too but being rude doesn't help.  I don't think the critique was intentionally rude but your replies were.  If you just ignored it it wouldn't have hijacked your thread into a direction that doesn't help you.  Rejection, critique and opinion come hand and hand with art and the past year has taught me a lot about both.


----------

