Flowing River Pictures??!!??!!

[skippersworld]

I see people who have flowing water in pictures and they've done something to make the water look ermmm smokey like, not sure how to put it! If anyone knows what i mean and a idea on how to get this effect then please could you explain it to me! Thanks =]

 

[RJL2005]

You need to use a long shutter speed, say about 1.5secs. A small aperture, low iso and overcast conditions all help as do nd filters.

 

[skippersworld]

ahhh right ok, so changing them other settings will stop it being so bright as longer shutter speed lets more light in right?

 

[HoppyUK]

ahhh right ok, so changing them other settings will stop it being so bright as longer shutter speed lets more light in right?

You've got it But you will struggle to get anywhere near one second shutter speed in normal daylight - it's too bright. You need an ND filter (neutral density) as mentioned. A 6-stops ND is popular, or even 10-stops. 10-stops will reduce your shutter speed from 1/1000sec to 1 second.

 

[skippersworld]

Ok cool, so really a dull day is good for something like this without a filter? Will have to experiment with the settings to see how it looks! Thanks for your help people!

 

[jerry12953]

Ok cool, so really a dull day is good for something like this without a filter? Will have to experiment with the settings to see how it looks! Thanks for your help people!

A dull day, yes, and a polariser will help by reducing reflections and cutting exposure by about 2 stops.

 

[seriousrikk]

Or early morning / late evening.
Cheaper than an ND filter...

 

[HoppyUK]

Low light, lowest ISO, and highest f/number will usually get you a long enough shutter speed for blurry-soft flowing water. But it's marginal, and diffraction does ruin sharpness with wide-angle lenses at small apertures (high f/number) like f/22. Something around f/11 is better.

An ND filter will instantly get your shutter speed right in the zone, with some room for manoeuvre, depending on how blurry/smokey/misty you want it, and how fast the water is moving.

In screw mount filters, Hoya ND8 is three stops, Hoya ND X400 is nine stops, B+W do six stops and ten stops, Tiffen HT 1.2 is four stops, and a polarising filter will help at a bit less than two stops. Personally, I think four-to-six stops of ND is maybe more generally useful than ten stops, but that's a matter of opinion. And these things seem to be quite hard to get hold of anyway, I've found recently.

The other thing about using ND filters is that you should cover the viewfinder eyepiece. Light gets in there during a long exposure, and squeezes through the chinks around the piggy-back mirror and on to the sensor causing streaking.

 

[fordpop]

Hitech do 4 stops as a slide in filter. Significantly cheaper than screw ins and would get you a start in a slide in filter set up.

I guess the negatives on this is potential for light getting in behind the filter and would 4 stops actually be enough?

Factor in how many times you would be shooting and generally what time of day you shoot.

 

[raythefab]

You need to use a long shutter speed, say about 1.5secs. A small aperture, low iso and overcast conditions all help as do nd filters.

1.5 second wow this was took at 1/4 of a second

 

[captures.in.time]

If you bought a 4 stop ND and then put a CPL infront of it too... would you then get the benefits of a polariser but have a 6 stop light reduction effect...

Is it a good idea to put more than one screw in filter on the front of a lens?

Can anyone recomend a good 4 stop ND screw in filter. I have a 24-105mm with 77mm thread

 

[raythefab]

If you bought a 4 stop ND and then put a CPL infront of it too... would you then get the benefits of a polariser but have a 6 stop light reduction effect...

Is it a good idea to put more than one screw in filter on the front of a lens?

Can anyone recomend a good 4 stop ND screw in filter. I have a 24-105mm with 77mm thread

I remember being told more glass less image Q dont know how true that is but it seems logical

 

[captures.in.time]

I know that too.... but in the manual for my 24-105 it states... use one filter only! I guess as i've done it before you can use two... but I guess i'm after a general concencus about that combination... it has to be true that more glass less IQ...

 

[HoppyUK]

I remember being told more glass less image Q dont know how true that is but it seems logical

Put it this way, I would rather have an ND and a polariser together and shoot at f/11 than just the ND at f/22. Unless the filters are really rubbish, my guess is that sharpness would usually be better that way (less diffraction) plus the upsides of the polariser.

Only caveat would be if there were a lot of sunny highlights creating flare, which two cheap filters would make worse. Most ND filters are uncoated, even the costly B+W ones.

But the biggest problem with stacking filters is vignetting - they get in the way at the front of the lens.

 

[HoppyUK]

1.5 second wow this was took at 1/4 of a second

That's quite fast flowing water, which makes a difference, but that pic would look quite a lot different with 1.5 secs. And the Heron might have moved

 

[captures.in.time]

Put it this way, I would rather have an ND and a polariser together and shoot at f/11 than just the ND at f/22. Unless the filters are really rubbish, my guess is that sharpness would usually be better that way (less diffraction) plus the upsides of the polariser.

Only caveat would be if there were a lot of sunny highlights creating flare, which two cheap filters would make worse. Most ND filters are uncoated, even the costly B+W ones.

But the biggest problem with stacking filters is vignetting - they get in the way at the front of the lens.

Thanks... makes sens about the f11 point... It's one thing I generally need to experiment with more... as before when shooting landscapes I always rushed to f22 or more... but if you dont need the DOF dont take it...!!!!

 

[2blue4u]

I know I'm in the minority on this one - so I'll be brief.

I can't stand shots of milky water. It's totally unnatural, false and doesn't add anything to the shot for me. You have a camera capable of freezing the movement - use it!!

 

[RJL2005]

1.5 second wow this was took at 1/4 of a second

Sorry maybe should have said slow shutter speed JUst trying to give the OP some idea of whats needed

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks... makes sens about the f11 point... It's one thing I generally need to experiment with more... as before when shooting landscapes I always rushed to f22 or more... but if you dont need the DOF dont take it...!!!!

Good point!

I come from a film background where diffraction just wasn't an issue. With full frame 35mm and low ISO film you just never got to to f/22. And with generally longer focal length lenses, the size of the aperture never got too small.

There was a thread here recently with some very poor quality images, shot at the wide end of a 10-20mm zoom at f/22. There was lots of debate about the lens being a poor copy, bad focus and camera shake. Then I took some comparison pics with my Canon 10-22 at f/11 and f/22 and the difference in sharpness was dramatic. The f/22 image was horrible. Problem solved.

Diffraction is a function of the physical size of the lens aperture. Nothing to do with the design or quality of the lens. The size of the aperture with a 10mm lens at f/22 is absolutely tiny. For this reason, digi-compacts with their even shorter focal length lenses often do not allow you to select higher f/numbers than f/8 or even f/5.6.

 

[captures.in.time]

Good point!

I come from a film background where diffraction just wasn't an issue. With full frame 35mm and low ISO film you just never got to to f/22. And with generally longer focal length lenses, the size of the aperture never got too small.

There was a thread here recently with some very poor quality images, shot at the wide end of a 10-20mm zoom at f/22. There was lots of debate about the lens being a poor copy, bad focus and camera shake. Then I took some comparison pics with my Canon 10-22 at f/11 and f/22 and the difference in sharpness was dramatic. The f/22 image was horrible. Problem solved.

Diffraction is a function of the physical size of the lens aperture. Nothing to do with the design or quality of the lens. The size of the aperture with a 10mm lens at f/22 is absolutely tiny. For this reason, digi-compacts with their even shorter focal length lenses often do not allow you to select higher f/numbers than f/8 or even f/5.6.

I'm from a film background also... and have only noticed it allot more since I moved to digital... but like you say the dif is amazing... everyone should go out and do the excersie with their wide angle lens especially... know it's sweet spot as often you wont need the DoF so to get your sharpest shot.. shoot at the sweet spot rather than the max DoF you feel you can shoot at without the risk of camera shake!

M

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm from a film background also... and have only noticed it allot more since I moved to digital... but like you say the dif is amazing... everyone should go out and do the excersie with their wide angle lens especially... know it's sweet spot as often you wont need the DoF so to get your sharpest shot.. shoot at the sweet spot rather than the max DoF you feel you can shoot at without the risk of camera shake!

M

Sorry to keep agreeing with you Mark Just on the camera shake thing.

Folks make a lot of fuss about lens sharpness, then post hand held pics at really slow speeds and long lenses, but they must be okay because they've got IS etc. Have they got a soft copy and all that nonsense.

There is always camera shake. It doesn't go away because you've got IS, or a high shutter speed, or even if you use a tripod. These are merely methods of reducing its affect, but it's still there.

If you really want to see what your lens can do, then as you say, shoot at the sweetspot (usually f/5.6 or f/8) and get the shutter speed as high as you can. If you've got a 15mp sensor, that's the only way you're ever going to see just how sharp it can get. Usually when there's a choice of a higher shutter speed or lower ISO, I will take the higher shutter speed.

 

[captures.in.time]

Sorry to keep agreeing with you Mark Just on the camera shake thing.

Folks make a lot of fuss about lens sharpness, then post hand held pics at really slow speeds and long lenses, but they must be okay because they've got IS etc. Have they got a soft copy and all that nonsense.

There is always camera shake. It doesn't go away because you've got IS, or a high shutter speed, or even if you use a tripod. These are merely methods of reducing its affect, but it's still there.

If you really want to see what your lens can do, then as you say, shoot at the sweetspot (usually f/5.6 or f/8) and get the shutter speed as high as you can. If you've got a 15mp sensor, that's the only way you're ever going to see just how sharp it can get. Usually when there's a choice of a higher shutter speed or lower ISO, I will take the higher shutter speed.

Are you suggesting for landscape work it might be better to go for an ISO 200... rather than jumping for ISO 100 as the clarity you get from the faster shutter speed working at the sweet spot may be better than comprimising by going for a slower shutter speed at the same apature?

 

[HoppyUK]

Are you suggesting for landscape work it might be better to go for an ISO 200... rather than jumping for ISO 100 as the clarity you get from the faster shutter speed working at the sweet spot may be better than comprimising by going for a slower shutter speed at the same apature?

No, not really saying always go for the highest shutter speed. It depends on the situation, how much movement there is. I guess it's more a long lens thing, which obviously magnifies movement/shake.

If it was a wedding or similar social group, then the general stuff with normal lens I'd go for low ISO quaility. Shutter speed shouldn't really be an issue there. But then for some candids with a 70-300 zoom, that's completely different. Even with IS I would want 1/500sec minimum at the long end of that, preferably higher using a crop body, and would sacrifice some ISO or f/number to get it.

Another thing about IS is that it sometimes tempts me into using a slow shutter speed, because I can get away with it from a camera shake point of view. This sometimes happens with my 17-55 IS, when maybe 1/30sec or longer is getawayable. This is when you get caught out by subject movement LOL

It's all a bit of a juggling act isn't it. I just think that people tend to think that camera shake goes away at certain times when in fact it is always there to some extent, nibbling away at sharpness, often more than you think.

 

[raythefab]

No, not really saying always go for the highest shutter speed. It depends on the situation, how much movement there is. I guess it's more a long lens thing, which obviously magnifies movement/shake.

If it was a wedding or similar social group, then the general stuff with normal lens I'd go for low ISO quaility. Shutter speed shouldn't really be an issue there. But then for some candids with a 70-300 zoom, that's completely different. Even with IS I would want 1/500sec minimum at the long end of that, preferably higher using a crop body, and would sacrifice some ISO or f/number to get it.

Another thing about IS is that it sometimes tempts me into using a slow shutter speed, because I can get away with it from a camera shake point of view. This sometimes happens with my 17-55 IS, when maybe 1/30sec or longer is getawayable. This is when you get caught out by subject movement LOL

It's all a bit of a juggling act isn't it?

You guys are way off topic here start another thread:shake:

 

[HoppyUK]

You guys are way off topic here start another thread:shake:

You can start another thread if you like

The OP's question was answered in post #2, so does that mean every other post has been off topic? In which case this place would be extremely quiet.

 

[raythefab]

You can start another thread if you like

The OP's question was answered in post #2, so does that mean every other post has been off topic? In which case this place would be extremely quiet.

:razz:

 

[HoppyUK]

:razz:

LOL A bit of friendly banter makes the world go round

 

[richpips]

I've just taken some shots with my 24-105L with 2 stacked filters, and there was only the tiniest bit of vignetting. As to sharpness, it doesn't really matter if the mood of the finished shot is blurred imho.