Advice for a waterfall misty effect with Nikon D3200

Of course it can. You will need a good tripod, sturdy and stable and not fearing being immersed in some depth of water if necessary, and a neutral density (grey) filter varying in density according to how pronounced you want the effect. A so-called “ND 6” (meaning, 6 stops worth of light absorption) is often recommended for waterfalls.

Look up “youtube waterfall photography” and you’ll find tons of how-tos. Have fun and don’t get the camera wet! A special pouch, or a plastic garbage bag can be a good precaution against spray.

In S mode, it seems you can go all the way to 30 seconds on the D3200, that should give you all you need. Or you can go all Manual of course.
 
Last edited:
Blue439 said:
Of course it can. You will need a good tripod, sturdy and stable and not fearing being immersed in some depth of water if necessary, and a neutral density (grey) filter varying in density according to how pronounced you want the effect. A so-called “ND 6” (meaning, 6 stops worth of light absorption) is often recommended for waterfalls.

Look up “youtube waterfall photography” and you’ll find tons of how-tos. Have fun and don’t get the camera wet! A special pouch, or a plastic garbage bag can be a good precaution against spray.

In S mode, it seems you can go all the way to 30 seconds on the D3200, that should give you all you need. Or you can go all Manual of course.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this advice! That's great to hear I could achieve such a beautiful picture with my camera :)
 
What Blue439 said :)

I wouldn't stand my tripod in the water itself though, even a small bit of swirling can add blur to the images, which looks a bit like that happened in the images you shared

In a fast stream I'd start at 1/30th sec and work your way down, 1 sec is often too long, but its all about what 'look' you're after

You don't need an expensive ND filter either. I'd go for a 10-stopper rather than a 6 as its more useful overall, you can always UP the ISO a bit if its making the exposures too long

Have fun :)
 
@PJSHOOTS_

Just a point of note?
If the above is not your image, as you infer by the question, then you should properly attribute the image and possibly ideally link to it at the source rather than embedding it.
 
Box Brownie said:
@PJSHOOTS_

Just a point of note?
If the above is not your image, as you infer by the question, then you should properly attribute the image and possibly ideally link to it at the source rather than embedding it.
Click to expand...

Thanks BB, I was about to say the same.

@PJSHOOTS_ photographs are copyright to the photographer, and it is wrong to use other people's pictures without permission. If that picture is not yours, please replace it with a link to the original. @PJSHOOTS_ Thanks for your amendment - I've just added named attribution.

Blue's advice is good. However you can get good pictures without a tripod and ND filter, if you stop the lens down and use a rock or tree to steady the camera. This gives less flexibility, but also doesn't need extra kit.
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
@PJSHOOTS_

Just a point of note?
If the above is not your image, as you infer by the question, then you should properly attribute the image and possibly ideally link to it at the source rather than embedding it.
Click to expand...
I've seen a lot of discussion of similar situations before, and it seems that in the way it has been used, it would be polite and decent to credit the source, but not a necessity.

Where would one find reliable facts to clarify it?
 
I have never used an ND filter for this sort of shot. I'm sure someone will be along to point out why it's not as good, but I find that a polariser does the job adequately given that a) it's best to do this on a cloudy day, and b) you are almost always under foliage / branches and the light is poor anyway. Just change the aperture to something like f16.
 
Your camera can certainly produce images like that. As others have said a tripod or some means of keeping the camera rock steady is needed. Sometimes depending on how bight the day is you may also need a neutral density filter (sun glasses for your camera)
That said on a dull overcast day you can get some pretty decent results hand holding, if you have a steady hand, set your camera to Aperture priority, set it to F11 (or higher if needed) untill you get the shutter speed to around a 1/15 or 1/8 of a second and holding very steady shoot away. It wont be as milky as the photo shown, but the movement will show.
This was hand held.
IMG_9226water.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you want to blur water, it's been done so many times & in various ways, but is most commonly seen in a 'painting by numbers' way (though who might remember that reference?)

Yeah, get it out of your system, like we do lots of things, but few of us pull it off meaningfully. It tends to be a token gesture, rather.

Is it reality, or is it art? Or neither?

But do explore!
 
There's a danger that we take ourselves too seriously Roger. And what's not to like about a silky water shot - it's just as 'real' as a shot where the water is frozen without a sense of movement.

This was hand-held 1/4 second propped against a tree, using a beginner camera and low-quality lens.


The veil by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top