# Finally, my own creamy water shots!



## julianliu (Oct 3, 2015)

After looking at long exposure creamy water shots from others for years, I finally made some long exposure shots with 10 stops ND filters after I camped in a mountain couple of weeks ago. They are just some shots of small creeks, not epic as lots of others out there. But these are mine   Anyway, comments on improvement?

Plus two more pictures of the mountains.


Ignore the signatures, they are for posting somewhere else.

1




2



3



4



5



6



7


----------



## sm4him (Oct 3, 2015)

Good for you!
So...you gonna let us SEE them?


----------



## julianliu (Oct 3, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Good for you!
> So...you gonna let us SEE them?



lol...my bad, was getting excited to click the post button before attaching the pictures. Just updated the post with photos


----------



## julianliu (Oct 3, 2015)

sm4him said:


> Good for you!
> So...you gonna let us SEE them?



love this one of your photos 

Smokecomposite_3314edit_color2WEB


----------



## WesternGuy (Oct 3, 2015)

If these are your first attempts at the "silky/creamy" water look, then this is a very good start.  I find however that a 10-stop ND filter (Big Stopper?), or a combination of ND filters, is a bit too much because I just end up with a mess of white stuff that isn't what I really want.  I look to maintain some of the "structure" in the water flow so that I can still see individual channels of flow, such as you can see in the small falls in #1.

You didn't tell us how long your exposures were, but in reality I find I only need to slow down the exposure to 1 to 2 seconds for most of the waterfalls that I photograph.  Sometimes I have to experiment with the ND filters to get the look I am after as it often depends how tall the falls are and how much water is going over them.  My "go to" ND filter to start with is usually an ND8 (3 stop) and if that is too much, I will go to an ND4 (2 stop) filter.  A lot of course depends on the sunlight falling on the seen.

This URL gives a fairly good comparison of what waterfalls look like at some different shutter speeds - http://digital-photography-school.com/picking-a-waterfall-shutter-speed-for-the-best-look/ .  I hope this helps.

WesternGuy


----------



## julianliu (Oct 4, 2015)

WesternGuy said:


> If these are your first attempts at the "silky/creamy" water look, then this is a very good start.  I find however that a 10-stop ND filter (Big Stopper?), or a combination of ND filters, is a bit too much because I just end up with a mess of white stuff that isn't what I really want.  I look to maintain some of the "structure" in the water flow so that I can still see individual channels of flow, such as you can see in the small falls in #1.
> 
> You didn't tell us how long your exposures were, but in reality I find I only need to slow down the exposure to 1 to 2 seconds for most of the waterfalls that I photograph.  Sometimes I have to experiment with the ND filters to get the look I am after as it often depends how tall the falls are and how much water is going over them.  My "go to" ND filter to start with is usually an ND8 (3 stop) and if that is too much, I will go to an ND4 (2 stop) filter.  A lot of course depends on the sunlight falling on the seen.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Western Guy. 

All these water photos takes 30 seconds. I tried to extend the shutter speed as long as possible and 30 seconds is the one easily can be achieved. I did not want to go to bulb mode and time it. 
I wanted to achieve the silky look. But now you mentioned, shorter shutter speed may get different, more structure look, which I think may look better comparing to  white mess. Now I know what to try next time. So thanks!

Julian


----------



## jaomul (Oct 4, 2015)

Very good first attempts. Trial and error will improve them

I really want to make fun of the thread title, though maybe i shouldn't


----------



## WesternGuy (Oct 4, 2015)

julianliu said:


> WesternGuy said:
> 
> 
> > If these are your first attempts at the "silky/creamy" water look, then this is a very good start.  I find however that a 10-stop ND filter (Big Stopper?), or a combination of ND filters, is a bit too much because I just end up with a mess of white stuff that isn't what I really want.  I look to maintain some of the "structure" in the water flow so that I can still see individual channels of flow, such as you can see in the small falls in #1.
> ...


Thanks for sharing the exposure information.  I think you will find that 30 seconds is a long time for "flowing" water shots.  I find that something in the order of 1 to 2 seconds or less (sometimes) is usually all I need.  I find that anything over 5 seconds just produces a rather silky mess with no structure at all.  You might want to think about experimenting a bit.  I would recommend something, but I don't know what you have for ND filters.  If you would care to share that information, then I might be able to make some suggestions.  If you check this URL out - http://www.photomentoris.com/download/file.php?id=2235&mode=view  , it is one of mine and will show you what I mean - it was shot at 1/4 second at f/22.  It may not be the best example, but you get the idea.  Hope this helps.

WesternGuy


----------



## julianliu (Oct 4, 2015)

WesternGuy said:


> julianliu said:
> 
> 
> > WesternGuy said:
> ...



Thanks for the advice and the link. 
I got your point. I only have a 10 stops ND filter. I need to experiment it to find my own favorite setting for sure.


----------



## JustJazzie (Oct 4, 2015)

Beautiful shots! I'm sure it will only get better from here. I saw those mountains and thought, that's got to be somewhere around here! Sure enough, I see you're in Denver! Where were you hiking for these?


----------



## WesternGuy (Oct 4, 2015)

My advice based on many years of photographing lots of things - 

If you can afford it, I would get a 1 stop, 2 stop and a 3 stop ND filter to start.  I find that I make most use of the 2 stop and the 3 stop, but the 1 stop is handy to have to give you a 4 (3+1) stop if you need it and, of course as a 1 stop filter.  Again, don't just buy the cheapest ones you can find as they are usually not good glass and some of them will give your images a color cast. 

I have Hoya HMC filters and have never had a problem with the results that any of them give me.  Shop around as you will find prices will vary and check out websites like B&H and 2Filters.  If you have a strict budget, then buy a 3 stop first, then a 2 stop, then a 1 stop.  The other decision you have to make is whether you go for "screw -on" or some form of square filters.  I have both (I bought the square ones to get graduated ND filters), but I find I use the screw-ons a lot more as the square ones require a holder and an adapter for each lens size and are more expensive.  For the circular screw-ons, I bought filters to fit my largest lens, an 82mm wide angle and then bought a step-down ring (or step-up as some folks call them) for my 77mm lenses.  This ring screws onto the 77mm lenses and then the 82 mm filter screws into the ring, allowing the 82 mm filter to be used on the smaller "lens".  This way, I have most of my lenses covered with 3 ND filters and I do not have to buy a filter for each lens whose objective diameter is different.

Hope this helps, but ultimately what you decide to do should be whatever is best for you.

WesternGuy


----------



## spiralout462 (Oct 4, 2015)

Nice shots!  #6 strikes me for sure!


----------



## Jim Walczak (Oct 5, 2015)

I feel these were a good attempt...particularly for a first try, however personally I find that to be WAAAAAAAY to much silk there!  As apposed to coming off "soft and creamy", I think it ends up looking like blotchy globs that no longer convey a sense of "water"...not trying to be rude at all, that's just how it looks to me.

I have to agree with Westernguy in that I'd play around with 1 - 2 seconds, depending on the lighting and work from there....I doubt I'd go more than 4 seconds TOPS.  I recently shot some images out at Brandywine falls here in Ohio and using just a polarizer, a 2 stop gradiated ND filter and a small aperture, I was able to get the exposure down to 1/20 of a second, which gave the images some silk, without looking over-done.  

I think the angles and framing and such look fine, I'd just back WAY off on the slow shutter...you still want it to look like _water_.

Just my $.02 worth.


----------



## julianliu (Oct 6, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> Beautiful shots! I'm sure it will only get better from here. I saw those mountains and thought, that's got to be somewhere around here! Sure enough, I see you're in Denver! Where were you hiking for these?



Thanks!

Yes, it's in Colorado. The mountains are near Sylvan Lake Park, and the water shots are from the small creek near Sylvan Lake and Hanging Lake. Have you been these places?


----------



## julianliu (Oct 6, 2015)

WesternGuy said:


> My advice based on many years of photographing lots of things -
> 
> If you can afford it, I would get a 1 stop, 2 stop and a 3 stop ND filter to start.  I find that I make most use of the 2 stop and the 3 stop, but the 1 stop is handy to have to give you a 4 (3+1) stop if you need it and, of course as a 1 stop filter.  Again, don't just buy the cheapest ones you can find as they are usually not good glass and some of them will give your images a color cast.
> 
> ...



Thanks, WesternGuy. I do appreciate your advice! My first reaction to these too creamy water shots was also disliking them. But still thought it looks cool.  After you guys pointed out, I realize my first reaction was right and I should have tried shorter shutter speed. I am more like a portrait guy and landscape is something I enjoy when I get a chance. So I will invest just one ND filter and add more if needed  But again, thanks for the advice. 

Julian


----------



## julianliu (Oct 6, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> I feel these were a good attempt...particularly for a first try, however personally I find that to be WAAAAAAAY to much silk there!  As apposed to coming off "soft and creamy", I think it ends up looking like blotchy globs that no longer convey a sense of "water"...not trying to be rude at all, that's just how it looks to me.
> 
> I have to agree with Westernguy in that I'd play around with 1 - 2 seconds, depending on the lighting and work from there....I doubt I'd go more than 4 seconds TOPS.  I recently shot some images out at Brandywine falls here in Ohio and using just a polarizer, a 2 stop gradiated ND filter and a small aperture, I was able to get the exposure down to 1/20 of a second, which gave the images some silk, without looking over-done.
> 
> ...



Thanks for pointing it out, as WesternGuy does. I will experimenting it more next time


----------



## julianliu (Oct 6, 2015)

WesternGuy said:


> My advice based on many years of photographing lots of things -
> 
> If you can afford it, I would get a 1 stop, 2 stop and a 3 stop ND filter to start.  I find that I make most use of the 2 stop and the 3 stop, but the 1 stop is handy to have to give you a 4 (3+1) stop if you need it and, of course as a 1 stop filter.  Again, don't just buy the cheapest ones you can find as they are usually not good glass and some of them will give your images a color cast.
> 
> ...



WesternGuy, 

I have a question for you since you have many years of experience of photographing silky water shots. As you can see from my photos, they have blue hues, the longer the shots last, the severe the hues are. How do you correct them in the post?  Thanks!


----------



## Malavok (Oct 9, 2015)

Great shots, especially for a first time! I'm only an amateur but I photograph waterfalls a lot (favorite subject); here's my general advice for waterfall photography:

-WIND is a huge problem for long-exposure waterfall photography; you may not notice it until it's too late... keep an eye on moving branches, grass, plants etc. that will blur in the image; you can usually wait for a calm moment in between breezes to take your shot
-Try out a circular polarizer (by itself or stacked with ND filter)
-Experiment with different lighting situations, not just shady or cloudy; try diffused sunlight (thin clouds), golden hour, etc.
-Keep an eye on the white balance, it is particularly tricky for waterfalls; most waterfalls are realistically white in color but others may be slightly blue, turquoise, etc. If you want your pictures to match the scene as accurately as possible (and be believable), take note of the color of the particular falls as you're photographing it and shoot RAW
-Change perspectives, especially higher/lower with your tripod, to see what you can get... it's tempting to always want to shoot down low, but for many waterfalls pushing the tripod up to 6-7 feet tall can show off certain waterfall patterns
-If you're going down low, you may need that f-stop pumped up high (sometimes I go up to f/18 or even f/22)
-Always experiment with different shutter speeds if it's your first time at a particular waterfall; you'll be surprised how some falls look better with fast shutter while others look better with slow (or ultra slow) shutter
-Always take multiple shots of each perspective and/or check shot on viewfinder; things like to go wrong w/long exposure (bug flying by, wind, etc.)
-Exposure is tricky -- overexpose and your water will lose detail; underexpose too much and noise will increase; don't rely too much on meter, use your best judgment and perhaps bracket a little just in case
-If you have the lenses, experiment with different focal lengths (back up and use longer focal length instead of just wide angle) 



julianliu said:


> WesternGuy said:
> 
> 
> > My advice based on many years of photographing lots of things -
> ...



Could be a result of the filter you're using, lighting, white balance, or other factors. Easy way to fix this in post:

-Shoot RAW and adjust white balance (warmer); sometimes putting the eye-dropper over the water works, but only sometimes
-Reduce the saturation of blue (and possibly aqua) tones in the water


----------



## julianliu (Oct 11, 2015)

Malavok said:


> Great shots, especially for a first time! I'm only an amateur but I photograph waterfalls a lot (favorite subject); here's my general advice for waterfall photography:
> 
> -WIND is a huge problem for long-exposure waterfall photography; you may not notice it until it's too late... keep an eye on moving branches, grass, plants etc. that will blur in the image; you can usually wait for a calm moment in between breezes to take your shot
> -Try out a circular polarizer (by itself or stacked with ND filter)
> ...


Thanks Malavok.  That's lots of advice you gave and I greatly appreciate it!


----------



## devorator (Oct 12, 2015)

I like 4 and 7 with wider approach. Had been said already that 30" exposure is too long for water flow. It creates a creamy mess with no texture and looks odd. Great attempt tho. [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WesternGuy (Oct 29, 2015)

julianliu said:


> WesternGuy said:
> 
> 
> > My advice based on many years of photographing lots of things -
> ...



As Malavok has noted, this "phenomenon" could be a white balance problem, lighting or other problems.  It may be that the filter itself is imparting a slight bluish hue to the water and it gets more "bluish" as the exposure gets longer - the Big Stopper is known to give a bluish colour cast to its images.  I do not know what software you have for post-processing, but in Lightroom you can use the Adjustment Brush to correct it.  It can also be done in Photoshop using Image > Adjustments, etc.  If you Google "removing color casts in _your editing program_", you should find all kinds of help.

WesternGuy


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 29, 2015)

nice


----------



## k5MOW (Oct 29, 2015)

These are fantastic. 

Roger


----------



## Msteelio91 (Oct 29, 2015)

Looks good - focus stacked?


----------



## Shadow83 (Oct 29, 2015)

At first glance it looked like fog moving across the ground. Cool effect and I will have to try it one of these days. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## julianliu (Nov 3, 2015)

Msteelio91 said:


> Looks good - focus stacked?


Yes, some photos I stacked. Good observation!


----------

