Beginner Any advice would be welcomed

Applemuncher

Applemuncher

Suspended / Banned
Messages
320
Name
Justine
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi - I recently took this photo in Abergele, I think it's ok as photos go - I really wanted a slow water effect to make it look really soft but the photo just isn't as nice as this looked in real life. I think the photo took on a yellow cast, probably because of the long exposure (tripod used also). What this photo doesn't capture is the magnificent rays of light filtering through the trees in to the water (you can see them slightly but they were much sharper in real life) and the really vibrant colours. Any suggestions? This hasn't been edited or anything, I don't have any software.

- Canon EOS 100D
- Apeture: f/25.0
- Shutter speed 2 seconds
- ISO 100

Abergele Woodland Waterfall by Justine Edwards, on Flickr
 
maybe worth investing in adobe elements 11 editing suite



had a little go at it but it is not always what you see against what the camera sees. i don't think the light shafts can have much done to them. bracketing the shot with the camera may help
 
Last edited:
The aperture is going to soften things - best to stay below f/16 - colour cast should be easy to remove by adjusting the white balance.

Not sure how the long exposure alters the rays of light (f/22 aperture will reduce them) but movement in the leaves during the exposure will have an effect.
 
Last edited:
Applemuncher said:
This hasn't been edited or anything
Click to expand...
I suspect there's more that can be brought out of this image, particularly if you'd shot raw but I suspect you've shot jpg if you don't have any software.
 
Do you not have the software that came with the camera? You may be able to download it from Canon's website
 
Applemuncher said:
I shot RAW! :)
Click to expand...
In which case there may be more that can be done.

This is a quick attempt to see what I could do with the jpg..


I suspect the rather small aperture has caused some of the problems in both the detail around some of the foliage and the sun rays. With a regular digital camera there is no sensible reason to ever stop down beyond f/16, if you need to extend the exposure you should use a neutral density filter. In this case 1/4- or 1/2-second would probably have been a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water. If you're not certain, try bracketing a few exposures with different settings so you can see which work best when you get home.

There's some problems in the highlights above the waterfall, but with the raw file I'd expect you could pull back at least one stop of highlight detail if not two.

The quick summary of what I've done in Lightroom here is:
  • Adjusted the white balance - in this case Auto got it looking about right
  • Some adjustment to the tone curve and the contrast to try and draw out the sun rays
  • Reduced the exposure
  • A radial filter centred on the waterfall and pool to darken the surrounding area and centre the gaze on the falls/pool
I strongly recommend Lightroom. There is free software available that does similar things, but LR is the standard software for a reason. It does the job and it does it very well. Some basic processing can really draw the image out of the shot file.
 
Alastair said:
In which case there may be more that can be done.

This is a quick attempt to see what I could do with the jpg..


I suspect the rather small aperture has caused some of the problems in both the detail around some of the foliage and the sun rays. With a regular digital camera there is no sensible reason to ever stop down beyond f/16, if you need to extend the exposure you should use a neutral density filter. In this case 1/4- or 1/2-second would probably have been a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water. If you're not certain, try bracketing a few exposures with different settings so you can see which work best when you get home.

There's some problems in the highlights above the waterfall, but with the raw file I'd expect you could pull back at least one stop of highlight detail if not two.

The quick summary of what I've done in Lightroom here is:
  • Adjusted the white balance - in this case Auto got it looking about right
  • Some adjustment to the tone curve and the contrast to try and draw out the sun rays
  • Reduced the exposure
  • A radial filter centred on the waterfall and pool to darken the surrounding area and centre the gaze on the falls/pool
I strongly recommend Lightroom. There is free software available that does similar things, but LR is the standard software for a reason. It does the job and it does it very well. Some basic processing can really draw the image out of the shot file.
Click to expand...


Thank you so much, that's so helpful - I see what you mean. I haven't embarked on Lightroom yet mainly because I kind of wanted to master my camera first, I didn't want to be too ambitious by learning too many things at once. I can see from this though how you can isolate specific problem areas of the photo and target them, that would be really useful I think.
 
Applemuncher said:
I don't know if they did - it was really still.
Click to expand...
It's rarely so still that you wouldn't catch movement in foliage in 2 secs. You can see movement in foliage on the LHS of the image.

I'll put it another way...

Shafts of light are formed where the sunlight travels between trees and illuminates impurities in the air. To the naked eye they appear to have sharp edges, why would you think they'd no longer have sharp edges in a photograph?

Whilst considering your answer, be aware that there are millions of images shot at 'regular' shutter speeds with nice crisp edges to shafts of light. :)
 
Phil V said:
It's rarely so still that you wouldn't catch movement in foliage in 2 secs. You can see movement in foliage on the LHS of the image.

I'll put it another way...

Shafts of light are formed where the sunlight travels between trees and illuminates impurities in the air. To the naked eye they appear to have sharp edges, why would you think they'd no longer have sharp edges in a photograph?

Whilst considering your answer, be aware that there are millions of images shot at 'regular' shutter speeds with nice crisp edges to shafts of light. :)
Click to expand...

Oh I have so much to learn. I 'wanted' the soft water - I did take some others that had a higher shutter speed but that seemed to take something away from the photo - the location was really peaceful and I wanted to try to catch that I guess.
 
Applemuncher said:
Oh I have so much to learn. I 'wanted' the soft water - I did take some others that had a higher shutter speed but that seemed to take something away from the photo - the location was really peaceful and I wanted to try to catch that I guess.
Click to expand...
Every day is a school day, if you're trying to blur movement of one object, expect other objects to move too.

It's the horrible thing we have with panning and rally cars, there's so many planes of movement we usually end up with a small portion of sharp car.
 
Phil V said:
Every day is a school day, if you're trying to blur movement of one object, expect other objects to move too.

It's the horrible thing we have with panning and rally cars, there's so many planes of movement we usually end up with a small portion of sharp car.
Click to expand...
I can't even begin to imagine the stress!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top