Silky Waterfall

[leslie1283]

I tried to take silky effect on this artificial waterfall. Feedback is very much appreciated.

#1, f/18, 2.5 sec




#2, f/4, 1/6 sec

[vsethuram]

Hi Leslie, The waterfall is nice .. prefer #1 over #2 for the silky effect.. but in both, the sky is overexposed, with the result that the silky effect of the waterfall is a bit lost. For #2, I would have gone for a slower shutter speed, like 1s.

Would be keen to read what others think.

[Jeffbridge]

Both good ones...I like #2 though....

[Shadowman]

You definitely achieved the silky look. Nice except for the overexposure.

[DonTX]

Would an ND filter have helped out?

[bnnrcn]

Hi Leslie ,I like the silky effect in #1.The image is a bit overexposed,as Don says ND filters might be helpful.

[Mike Buckley]

I prefer the foreground being in focus in the first one.

Lacking information about the ISO (all EXIF data has been removed), we don't know if a neutral density filter would have been needed to reduce the light entering the lens. (Well, people who are experts at using the sunny 16 rule could probably provide a good estimate of the ISO but I'm not in their league.) Even so, using a polarizer would have knocked down about two stops of light and could also have been used to minimize glare on the leaves.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Leslie. The silky effect in the first shot is really nice. Compositionally these are nicely done. On the second shot ss was a bit low.

As others have said, a polarizer would help make the foliage look a bit better. The sky is definately too bright. Either a graduated ND filter or taking two exposures (one for sky, one for the rest) and blending them in PP would take care of that issue. Waterfalls are best shot mornings, evenings, or with overcast sky. One of the rare time when shooting landscape that flat light is a good thing.

[leslie1283]

Thanks Vish

[leslie1283]

I prefer the foreground being in focus in the first one.

Lacking information about the ISO (all EXIF data has been removed), we don't know if a neutral density filter would have been needed to reduce the light entering the lens. (Well, people who are experts at using the sunny 16 rule could probably provide a good estimate of the ISO but I'm not in their league.) Even so, using a polarizer would have knocked down about two stops of light and could also have been used to minimize glare on the leaves.

Mike,

The ISO is 100. I used a GND for the two shots but my exposure was at +0.3.

[leslie1283]

Dan,

Thanks for your advice

[leslie1283]

Don,
I used a GND.

[leslie1283]

Hi Leslie ,I like the silky effect in #1.The image is a bit overexposed,as Don says ND filters might be helpful.

Binnur,

For #1, I did some localized adjustment of the exposure.

#3

[leslie1283]

Thanks Jeffbridge

[bnnrcn]

Leslie,green leaves and light look better in your edit.The colour of the water turned gray is it related to white balance?

[Stagecoach]

The ISO is 100. I used a GND for the two shots but my exposure was at +0.3.

Hi Leslie, I like the framing of the scene in these. You say the exposure EC was +0.3 for these but were you aware of the overexposure by checking the histogram or blinkies after taking the shots?

At times when I have wanted to take long exposures and have not had sufficient NDs or polarizers with me I have reverted to dropping the ISO below base value for that extra bit of help.

Grahame

[saea501]

I generally use an ND 64 filter. Allows you enough range, 1 to 5 seconds, to get the effect you want without overexposing.

[leslie1283]

Bob,
Thanks for sharing.

[leslie1283]

Grahame,

Thanks for your advice.

[leslie1283]

Binnur,as I am a PS CC newbie, I tried localized lower the exposure/brightness of the sky only, did another one on the sky and waterfall and last one the entire photo and didn't realize how come the water turned gray.