Milky Water

dentonkarl

dentonkarl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Name
Karl
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
Tried to take a photo of a bridge today and a waterfall behind it making the water look milky.
I knew I needed a slow shutter speed so went for 1/2 or 1/6 second. On f9 they were too bright so went to f22. They are still not correct. It was a bright sunshine day.
How can I improve this? Are the settings roughly correct?
Thanks
 
You'll need an ND filter. It will be too bright on a sunny day even at f/22. You want a shutter of at least a second really.
Either that or go back when its darker.
 
Thanks for that Tom.
What ND filter do I need - stop wise ? I have a polarizing filter but didn't have that on at the time. I guess that wouldn't have helped though in this situation ?

Below is the bad examples

5643987785_f668eba314.jpg


5644553012_4684f24173.jpg

ISO 125
F25
Focal Length 22mm
Shutter 1/2 second
 
Last edited:
Yeah basically it was to bright and the settings have caused the camera to over expose drastically.
A circular polariser is more aimed at reducing reflections etc. If you are luck it may give you a couple of extra stops reduction.

As for ND's take your pick from 1 stop up to 10 stops+.
The greater the stops the longer the shutter stays open and the more movement you capture.
Depends on what you wna to achieve and how much you want to pay.

I find with ND's there is no exact measure, it's more trial and error.
 
Thanks for that. Best invest in a few ND filters too.
Just a question. If I'd have changed the exposure compensation on camera to say -1 would it have come out ok? I might be totally wrong though.
 
It would have helped only a tiny amount but in doing so it increases your shutter speed thus detracting from the effect you are attempting in the first place.
 
I'd either get a range of slot in filters like the Cokin system and get some ND 4 and 8 or just go all out and by an ND10.
You might find an ND10 too much, an ND 8 should be about right for that sort of shot where you only want a second exposure. A ND 10 is more for several seconds.

Changing the ex comp just changes the shutter speed up or down from the camera's metering, so wont give the effect you want.
 
dentonkarl said:
What ND filter do I need - stop wise ? I have a polarizing filter but didn't have that on at the time. I guess that wouldn't have helped though in this situation
Click to expand...

I think this is one of the situations your polorizer was made for.
You are photographing water and you also needed to loose a couple of stops.
I would try this before going out an buying ND filters.
 
A polariser wont give enough light reduction in bright light like that. It would be ok in dim overcast light though, although may still not give quite enough.
 
Without a filter, you will achieve the slowest shutter speed by setting your ISO to it's lowest setting, setting the aperture to the highest number (smallest opening) and see what that gives you.

If it's a really bright day, as it appears to have been in the samples you posted, the resulting shutter speed from the steps above may not be slow enough to give you the milky effect you are after, in which case you will definitely need a ND filter.
 
dentonkarl said:
I have a polarizing filter but didn't have that on at the time. I guess that wouldn't have helped though in this situation
Click to expand...

TCR4x4 said:
A polariser wont give enough light reduction in bright light like that. It would be ok in dim overcast light though, although may still not give quite enough.
Click to expand...

I still stand by my answer to dentonkarls comment about 'being unsure if his polariser would have helped'.

If he had used the filter on his example's above, he would have had the extra couple of stops needed to correct them.
He then would have ended up with usable shots, just using the equipment available to him at the time.

I still can't think of a better time to use a polariser then when you have a shot with all the ingredients of 'water, green foliage and sunshine' together.
 
18%grey said:
I still stand by my answer to dentonkarls comment about 'being unsure if his polariser would have helped'.

If he had used the filter on his example's above, he would have had the extra couple of stops needed to correct them.
He then would have ended up with usable shots, just using the equipment available to him at the time.

I still can't think of a better time to use a polariser then when you have a shot with all the ingredients of 'water, green foliage and sunshine' together.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but if you look at the OP's second shot, a circular polariser would not have rescued that.
The first shot.........possibly.
You have to go back to the title of the OP's thread though and think about it "MILKY WATER".
To get the milky water effect requires at least 1 second exposure as Tom mentioned above, even then that's a rough guide, andI would only use that if the water is still.
If the water is moving I would want to expose for a lot longer as in my opinion the longer you expose the milkier it gets.

If I was taking the same shot, taking into account the same conditions I would have strapped the 10 stopper on and exposed somewhere in the region of 15-30 seconds (dependant upon aperture)
 
I agree with every thing that has been said, the question about the op's Milky Water effect has been asked and answered.

I was just commenting on the fact that at the time dentonkarl had at his disposal a polariser (that is approx equal to a ND4 0.6 filter),
which he could have whipped out and made use of.

If he had used it on this occasion at least it would have given some reason for it's purchase in the first place.
I have loads of stuff I have bought and never really made full use of and polarisers are one of them.
 
Thanks for the advice. Didn't think it would attract so much chat. I'll take it next time

Thinking of buying ND filter too.
 
Last edited:
You have to Use ND filter, try an ND8, or an split ND filter to photograph skys.
 
Been looking on here at so many milky water photos and they have all used ND filters.

Couple of questions :-

Is it better to get the split ones like the Cokin ?
Do you need a 10 stop or is ND8 full size ok ?
Do they still work (particular 10 stop) if its dull or would you need to reduce to ND4 or 8 ?

Thanks
 
dentonkarl said:
Couple of questions :-

Is it better to get the split ones like the Cokin ?
Click to expand...
These are more for holding back bright skies for sunrise/sunset shots. If you want to slow the water, a pure ND is probably your better bet.

Do you need a 10 stop or is ND8 full size ok ?
Click to expand...
The 10 stops are quite expensive, £80 plus. You may find an ND8 a bit cheaper somewhere and would be good for practicing with to see if you like it etc.

My 2p.
 
I assume you camera ISO sensitivity was set to 200 or lower?
 
dentonkarl said:
Been looking on here at so many milky water photos and they have all used ND filters.

Couple of questions :-

Is it better to get the split ones like the Cokin ?
Do you need a 10 stop or is ND8 full size ok ?
Do they still work (particular 10 stop) if its dull or would you need to reduce to ND4 or 8 ?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The Cokin ones (I presume u mean the retangular plastic filters) will require a holder and an adaptor ring, the Cokin are ok but do produce a magenta colour cast. If you mean split as in top half of the filter greyed out and the other half clear, no you dont need them for the look you are after..... unless of course you are shooting with a horizon and some sky.

The 10 Stop is very extreme, alot of evening exsposures well over BULB I would go for ND 8 to get the look you want on waterfalls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top