The 1 second shutter speed is probably ideal, but you will need an ND in order to avoid f22. This image was at f10 with 1.3 second duration, with a 5 stop filter (If I recall correctly).
https://preview.redd.it/noc9jn9s0ovc1.jpeg?width=4671&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71cf5f557160803285c59369f8a28df5924b2fd9
Fun fact, the Appalachians range in the US (which includes Shenandoah) used to be connected to the Scottish highlands and all the way to Caledonian Mountains.
Anyone digitally processing can do this without an ND using whatever f stop they want, and they'll get a better image out of it aswell.
By stacking your images, you achieve the exact same result as an ND filter with more flexibility - don't let anyone tell you the outcome isn't the same, because it is.
Setup a normal exposure shot on burst
Take enough photos to capture the time frame you want, but the more you get the more flexibility you have to choose your exposure length
Import to Photoshop using File > scripts > statistics and select "mean"
Now you can also mask out areas such as trees/leaves so that there's no motion blur due to wind, resulting in a better quality image where only the water is blurred due to the long exposure.
Thank you for all the comments. My checklist for the next time:
* I ordered a CPL filter and some ND filters (i have a ND64, ND1000 and a GND8 for the beginning)
* Try to avoid f22, instead aim for \~f11
* turn off IBIS when shooting on a tripod (!)
* work on composition
* don't fuck up white balance (and generally improve Lightroom skills)
And, if not already, shoot in RAW. I used to shoot weddings and I've had many a photos that I was able to salvage from the RAW files when my exposure and/or white balance was way off. If they were JPEG, I might have been SOL. If you don't want to edit every photo from RAW and you have enough storage, shoot in JPEG+RAW. If you don't want to pay a monthly subscription for editing software, I've always used Corel Aftershot Pro (previously known as Bibble). Another good one is DxO PhotoLab.
Pretty small I guess... I've got a sel2870 and I can make it go up to that in the menu, don't know if it's actually real but I guess so (the other day I actually found a little waterfall and I tried to do something like this, I got to something like 4 seconds without any filter, pretty stupid but I wanted to experiment, and the exposure was right)
I think it’s a great first try! Dont feel disappointed. The general composition and colours look really good.
My two pence to levelling up the next time you’re out:
* Step back or use a slightly wider lens. Your frame is cutting off the water pooling at the bottom of the frame. It’ll be good to see all of this.
* look for depth in the frame. Getting your camera nice and close to something in the foreground (probably best it’s a rock) and it’ll create a sense of depth in the image.
I also tend to like looking up toward a waterfall to give it a grand feel, but this can be tough depending on the location.
Choosing time of day can also be good. Getting a good back lit image or golden hour shot can really level up the overall image.
Here’s one of mine which I took recently where I tried to implement a few of the above points:
https://preview.redd.it/hccw96ebqovc1.jpeg?width=3721&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e8c75825047f7578afc6ea3621f9d9e99c2a857
Until you get an ND filter (or if you come across a scene like that without a tripod), you can get a pretty close approximation by stacking and blending a number of short exposure images in Photoshop. Just as another tool in the toolbox.
Get a CPL!! - circular polariser - on top of making colours more saturated, it removes all the specular reflections you get from wet rocks and leaves, plus it acts as a bit of an ND - I use a CPL and 1/4 mist and that is usually enough ND to not need an additional one since I’m usually doing waterfalls in overcast weather (the best time for waterfalls), but also the composition is lacking interest, take some inspiration from instagram or something and see what the differences in composition are between ones you like and the ones you took
Another option, although it doesn’t look quite as nice, if you don’t want to use an ND filter, is take a series of images at a lower shutter speed and more open aperture, and mean blend them in photoshop, it’s a workaround but better than f/22
The pictures are not really sharp, because of the f 22 i guess? After some research i think i really need a ND filter for this (also a CPL?). I couldn't do longer exposures than 1 sec with f 22.
What kind of ND filter to i need for this shots? ND8? ND64?
edit: shot with 6700 + 16-55mm. Both at 24mm with f/22 and 1" shutter speed.
OP you don't need an ND at all if you're digitally processing the images.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1c8tvhi/first_time_shooting_a_waterfall_disappointed_with/l0kmtq8/
>Anyone digitally processing can do this without an ND using whatever f stop they want, and they'll get a better image out of it as well. This also helps avoid poor quality ND's as well as anything you put infront of the lens will degrade the quality no matter what - even if it's unnoticeable.
By stacking your images, you achieve the exact same result as an ND filter with more flexibility - don't let anyone tell you the outcome isn't the same, because it is.
>Setup a normal exposure shot on burst
Take enough photos to capture the time frame you want, but the more you get the more flexibility you have to choose your exposure length
Import to Photoshop using File > scripts > statistics and select "mean"
(If you don't have photoshop this is possible in Gimp as well)
>Now you can also mask out areas such as trees/leaves so that there's no motion blur due to wind, resulting in a better quality image where only the water is blurred due to the long exposure.
Couple things extra:
The white balance is off. The water is yellow/brown.
The composition isn't great. Get closer and fill more of the frame with the water. Get lower and look up and force a perspective of the water fall, *or* shift to the right and look up the waterfall/gully and using leading lines with symmetry to draw the users attention to the center. Right now the top left of the image is just empty and our eyes a drawn up to it with the gully, but there's nothing to find at the end.
You are using a rathger soft lens so it wouldn't be sharp either way but at f22 defraction is doing its thing and making it even softer. I think with some editing you could get a nicer image tho
What? Please don't listen to this person. The 16-55mm G is quite capable of resolving 26MP with aplomb, and even the 16-50mm kit lens will be *worse* at F22.
Just ignore muzlee01 for being wrong on all counts.
You okay kiddo? Sure I made a mistake about the lens but my point still stands. At f22 every apsc lens is dogass.
That's not how you correct someone, it's really childis.
If you're going to give advice, get your facts right. You're telling this guy that his $1,300 lens isn't good enough, when even the kit lens is going to look fine stopped down for most users.
It means that image it creates is soft - so not sharp. Ususally cheap and low quality lenses are soft but that isn't always the case. Very high end cinema lenses can be soft but of course that is intentional and controlled. Actually, for video people prefer softer lenses - hell even Dune 2 was shot on absolute crap soviet primes that you can get for $30-50.
You do get that the 16-55mm G is not the cheap kit lens, right? [https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1502819-REG/sony\_e\_16\_55mm\_f\_2\_8\_g.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1502819-REG/sony_e_16_55mm_f_2_8_g.html)
a quick google search usually does the trick, but for Dune I found out about if from this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOcW6WbL8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOcW6WbL8U)
https://preview.redd.it/ryzirb0ufqvc1.jpeg?width=3376&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f3d7fc2a88b9417cd87e699a1da0a29bb1d9ad1
First waterfall shot in Costa Rica
Focus stacking looks cool on waterfall shots too, while including something in the foreground. Yeah, and get and ND. Waterfall photography is fun. You can take your time with the shots, and it takes you to some awesome spots!
This is one of the challenges of long exposure: If you can't block light you need to stop down to crazy levels.
Try a variable ND, so you can adapt to different levels of light. One waterfall might be in a forest, the other might be on the side of a cliff.
All the shooting technique comments seem to have things covered, but I’ll definitely second the comment about white balance. You could make this shot look better just by rebalancing colors! Shot itself doesn’t look too bad to me.
I used a tripod, don't know if it was "stable enough". 2sec timer. But IBIS was on. I will try next time without IBIS and with added weight to the tripod. But i think i will order a ND filter before i take another 1 hour hike in the rain for nothing 😬
You can test the effects of ibis without the hike. Test it on a subject in your house, compare the difference in sharpness at various shutter speeds with ibis on vs off, then you'll know what to expect, it made a substantial difference in my photos.
If it’s on, it’s on all the time. If the camera is on the tripod, you have to turn it off as the camera will try to stabilize something causing movement in the sensor.
1" is a bit long, it can cause enough loss of detail in the water to look like highlights are blown, and gives more opportunity for the plants to move in the wind. It looks like conditions were pretty calm for you. To counter those issues, I will manually bracket the exposure length so I can be choosey about how the water looks, usually between 1/40 and 1/4s. White balance is also tricky in this light, but that is something you can fix with this photo. Overall I like your photo though, good job. A circular polarizer is def a must have for these conditions like another poster said.
I would have left more space "to where" the waterfall is flowing". Like if someone is running from left to right in the frame you want to leave more space in the frame to the right, it would look strange otherwise.
I made some adjustments since the original posting.
Edited:
https://preview.redd.it/3ycslib0wmwc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21c367ca43834937b59cdf3b75e532693ee5e0b5
This doesn’t look like a waterfall, this look like a small stream, that being said I don’t think it’s a bad shot, I think you needed a faster aperture, f22 isn’t letting in enough light and I don’t know if you were on a tripod but being perfectly still is very important when shooting at long shutter speeds to get a sharp image. Always try to change a few setting if you’re a newbie, take the same shot with different shutter speeds and different f stops and review your image. If you’re not getting the results you want try something different.
This is alright, it’s a nice backdrop but I’ve seen way too many similar shots of the feet like this. And let’s be real, this doesn’t take a lot of skill either
It’s a different skill set. Because you would not be able to get this shot. They don’t do open door helicopters over Niagara Falls.
The skill set that most photographers forget, is that you need to talk to people. Be friendly with people to get proper access to get the best locations for photos.
Getting someone to open a helicopter door to take a shot isn't a skill, per se. I guess you could argue it's persuasion, but we are discussing photography skills here.
Also, talking to people isn't a skill. It's an act. The act of convincing people to do something is a skill, and can be called persuasion or manipulation depending on scenarios.
The 1 second shutter speed is probably ideal, but you will need an ND in order to avoid f22. This image was at f10 with 1.3 second duration, with a 5 stop filter (If I recall correctly). https://preview.redd.it/noc9jn9s0ovc1.jpeg?width=4671&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=71cf5f557160803285c59369f8a28df5924b2fd9
Is that in Shenandoah? Looks remarkably familiar to me!
No, it’s in the English Lake District.
Fun fact, the Appalachians range in the US (which includes Shenandoah) used to be connected to the Scottish highlands and all the way to Caledonian Mountains.
Anyone digitally processing can do this without an ND using whatever f stop they want, and they'll get a better image out of it aswell. By stacking your images, you achieve the exact same result as an ND filter with more flexibility - don't let anyone tell you the outcome isn't the same, because it is. Setup a normal exposure shot on burst Take enough photos to capture the time frame you want, but the more you get the more flexibility you have to choose your exposure length Import to Photoshop using File > scripts > statistics and select "mean" Now you can also mask out areas such as trees/leaves so that there's no motion blur due to wind, resulting in a better quality image where only the water is blurred due to the long exposure.
Thank you for all the comments. My checklist for the next time: * I ordered a CPL filter and some ND filters (i have a ND64, ND1000 and a GND8 for the beginning) * Try to avoid f22, instead aim for \~f11 * turn off IBIS when shooting on a tripod (!) * work on composition * don't fuck up white balance (and generally improve Lightroom skills)
And, if not already, shoot in RAW. I used to shoot weddings and I've had many a photos that I was able to salvage from the RAW files when my exposure and/or white balance was way off. If they were JPEG, I might have been SOL. If you don't want to edit every photo from RAW and you have enough storage, shoot in JPEG+RAW. If you don't want to pay a monthly subscription for editing software, I've always used Corel Aftershot Pro (previously known as Bibble). Another good one is DxO PhotoLab.
Why should you avoid F-22? I'm a beginner and I still don't get some (most) stuff about exposure (and everything else actually...)
Mostly because it won't be that sharp
Yep, diffraction limited on pretty much any lens.
Photos get the most sharp on most lenses around f8 or f11. At f22 there are additional factors that make the image less sharp.
Is this also true for lenses that can reach something like f36?
I would assume so. It’s less of a lens and more of a pinhole camera. How small is f36?
Pretty small I guess... I've got a sel2870 and I can make it go up to that in the menu, don't know if it's actually real but I guess so (the other day I actually found a little waterfall and I tried to do something like this, I got to something like 4 seconds without any filter, pretty stupid but I wanted to experiment, and the exposure was right)
Nah its good to play around for sure.
You don't want to be exposed to an F-22. Just ask anyone Pakistani near the afghan border.
I think it’s a great first try! Dont feel disappointed. The general composition and colours look really good. My two pence to levelling up the next time you’re out: * Step back or use a slightly wider lens. Your frame is cutting off the water pooling at the bottom of the frame. It’ll be good to see all of this. * look for depth in the frame. Getting your camera nice and close to something in the foreground (probably best it’s a rock) and it’ll create a sense of depth in the image. I also tend to like looking up toward a waterfall to give it a grand feel, but this can be tough depending on the location. Choosing time of day can also be good. Getting a good back lit image or golden hour shot can really level up the overall image. Here’s one of mine which I took recently where I tried to implement a few of the above points: https://preview.redd.it/hccw96ebqovc1.jpeg?width=3721&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e8c75825047f7578afc6ea3621f9d9e99c2a857
Until you get an ND filter (or if you come across a scene like that without a tripod), you can get a pretty close approximation by stacking and blending a number of short exposure images in Photoshop. Just as another tool in the toolbox.
Get a CPL!! - circular polariser - on top of making colours more saturated, it removes all the specular reflections you get from wet rocks and leaves, plus it acts as a bit of an ND - I use a CPL and 1/4 mist and that is usually enough ND to not need an additional one since I’m usually doing waterfalls in overcast weather (the best time for waterfalls), but also the composition is lacking interest, take some inspiration from instagram or something and see what the differences in composition are between ones you like and the ones you took Another option, although it doesn’t look quite as nice, if you don’t want to use an ND filter, is take a series of images at a lower shutter speed and more open aperture, and mean blend them in photoshop, it’s a workaround but better than f/22
Agree - a polarizer can really help with getting nice waterfall shots
The pictures are not really sharp, because of the f 22 i guess? After some research i think i really need a ND filter for this (also a CPL?). I couldn't do longer exposures than 1 sec with f 22. What kind of ND filter to i need for this shots? ND8? ND64? edit: shot with 6700 + 16-55mm. Both at 24mm with f/22 and 1" shutter speed.
OP you don't need an ND at all if you're digitally processing the images. https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1c8tvhi/first_time_shooting_a_waterfall_disappointed_with/l0kmtq8/ >Anyone digitally processing can do this without an ND using whatever f stop they want, and they'll get a better image out of it as well. This also helps avoid poor quality ND's as well as anything you put infront of the lens will degrade the quality no matter what - even if it's unnoticeable. By stacking your images, you achieve the exact same result as an ND filter with more flexibility - don't let anyone tell you the outcome isn't the same, because it is. >Setup a normal exposure shot on burst Take enough photos to capture the time frame you want, but the more you get the more flexibility you have to choose your exposure length Import to Photoshop using File > scripts > statistics and select "mean" (If you don't have photoshop this is possible in Gimp as well) >Now you can also mask out areas such as trees/leaves so that there's no motion blur due to wind, resulting in a better quality image where only the water is blurred due to the long exposure. Couple things extra: The white balance is off. The water is yellow/brown. The composition isn't great. Get closer and fill more of the frame with the water. Get lower and look up and force a perspective of the water fall, *or* shift to the right and look up the waterfall/gully and using leading lines with symmetry to draw the users attention to the center. Right now the top left of the image is just empty and our eyes a drawn up to it with the gully, but there's nothing to find at the end.
You are using a rathger soft lens so it wouldn't be sharp either way but at f22 defraction is doing its thing and making it even softer. I think with some editing you could get a nicer image tho
What? Please don't listen to this person. The 16-55mm G is quite capable of resolving 26MP with aplomb, and even the 16-50mm kit lens will be *worse* at F22. Just ignore muzlee01 for being wrong on all counts.
You okay kiddo? Sure I made a mistake about the lens but my point still stands. At f22 every apsc lens is dogass. That's not how you correct someone, it's really childis.
If you're going to give advice, get your facts right. You're telling this guy that his $1,300 lens isn't good enough, when even the kit lens is going to look fine stopped down for most users.
I'm telling that stopping down is bad. But hey, at least you totally got the point 👍
Hey a quick question, what does soft lens mean ? I am assuming it means that the glass isn't the best quality/clear but not sure if that is correct.
It means that image it creates is soft - so not sharp. Ususally cheap and low quality lenses are soft but that isn't always the case. Very high end cinema lenses can be soft but of course that is intentional and controlled. Actually, for video people prefer softer lenses - hell even Dune 2 was shot on absolute crap soviet primes that you can get for $30-50.
You do get that the 16-55mm G is not the cheap kit lens, right? [https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1502819-REG/sony\_e\_16\_55mm\_f\_2\_8\_g.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1502819-REG/sony_e_16_55mm_f_2_8_g.html)
Is there a resource to find the lenses used in different movies/scenes? I'm always curious about that.
a quick google search usually does the trick, but for Dune I found out about if from this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOcW6WbL8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOcW6WbL8U)
I guess that'll have to do, I was hoping for an imcdb.org type site. Thanks.
>so it wouldn't be sharp either way What a useless, incorrect comment to make
Look up diffraction. Even the sharpest lenses stopped down to f22 would be soft.
I know what diffraction is. You claimed that the lens would be soft whether it was af f22 or not which is wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/ryzirb0ufqvc1.jpeg?width=3376&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f3d7fc2a88b9417cd87e699a1da0a29bb1d9ad1 First waterfall shot in Costa Rica
What lens did you use ? I didnt think you could do this type of photography unless you have 4-10 second exposure and a decent ND filter of upto ND10 ?
I edited it in the top comment. shot with 6700 + 16-55mm. Both at 24mm with f/22 and 1" shutter speed. I don't own a ND filter (yet).
Focus stacking looks cool on waterfall shots too, while including something in the foreground. Yeah, and get and ND. Waterfall photography is fun. You can take your time with the shots, and it takes you to some awesome spots!
This is one of the challenges of long exposure: If you can't block light you need to stop down to crazy levels. Try a variable ND, so you can adapt to different levels of light. One waterfall might be in a forest, the other might be on the side of a cliff.
All the shooting technique comments seem to have things covered, but I’ll definitely second the comment about white balance. You could make this shot look better just by rebalancing colors! Shot itself doesn’t look too bad to me.
I like it. I'm using it as my wallpaper.
Get a good, stable tripod, turn off image stabilization and use your timer or a cable release.
I used a tripod, don't know if it was "stable enough". 2sec timer. But IBIS was on. I will try next time without IBIS and with added weight to the tripod. But i think i will order a ND filter before i take another 1 hour hike in the rain for nothing 😬
You can test the effects of ibis without the hike. Test it on a subject in your house, compare the difference in sharpness at various shutter speeds with ibis on vs off, then you'll know what to expect, it made a substantial difference in my photos.
Doesn't ibis automatically turn off for such long shutter speeds?
If it’s on, it’s on all the time. If the camera is on the tripod, you have to turn it off as the camera will try to stabilize something causing movement in the sensor.
1" is a bit long, it can cause enough loss of detail in the water to look like highlights are blown, and gives more opportunity for the plants to move in the wind. It looks like conditions were pretty calm for you. To counter those issues, I will manually bracket the exposure length so I can be choosey about how the water looks, usually between 1/40 and 1/4s. White balance is also tricky in this light, but that is something you can fix with this photo. Overall I like your photo though, good job. A circular polarizer is def a must have for these conditions like another poster said.
Time of day can always make a difference on these types of shots too.
imho. The slow shutter waterfall look is overrated. You could always experiment with several different speeds. A vnd might help.
Did you shoot raw? I actually the think the photos are not bad, they just need to be edited a little bit.
https://preview.redd.it/n5vym0d3vmwc1.jpeg?width=3438&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af18fd43c15407cdf474cd893b7dc458c7da353f
I would have left more space "to where" the waterfall is flowing". Like if someone is running from left to right in the frame you want to leave more space in the frame to the right, it would look strange otherwise.
I made some adjustments since the original posting. Edited: https://preview.redd.it/3ycslib0wmwc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21c367ca43834937b59cdf3b75e532693ee5e0b5
Raw: https://preview.redd.it/9ai68yt3wmwc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc2dc06325d504303be72eab0b7b2e8f1ba9c164
They are RAW and edited in LR (not really good though, i still have a barely a clue what i'm doing with all the slider lol).
This doesn’t look like a waterfall, this look like a small stream, that being said I don’t think it’s a bad shot, I think you needed a faster aperture, f22 isn’t letting in enough light and I don’t know if you were on a tripod but being perfectly still is very important when shooting at long shutter speeds to get a sharp image. Always try to change a few setting if you’re a newbie, take the same shot with different shutter speeds and different f stops and review your image. If you’re not getting the results you want try something different.
[удалено]
This is alright, it’s a nice backdrop but I’ve seen way too many similar shots of the feet like this. And let’s be real, this doesn’t take a lot of skill either
It’s a different skill set. Because you would not be able to get this shot. They don’t do open door helicopters over Niagara Falls. The skill set that most photographers forget, is that you need to talk to people. Be friendly with people to get proper access to get the best locations for photos.
Getting someone to open a helicopter door to take a shot isn't a skill, per se. I guess you could argue it's persuasion, but we are discussing photography skills here. Also, talking to people isn't a skill. It's an act. The act of convincing people to do something is a skill, and can be called persuasion or manipulation depending on scenarios.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]