DSLRUsers.com

Here are three views of the same waterfall from the same location.
FYI it is Purakaunui Falls near Owaka New Zealand.

I know the dreamy look is fashionable, but I like the lace effect as well. I think there is room for both.
I am undecided about landscape Vs portrait for this waterfall

Like the portrait better. I am a sucker for the dreamy effect.

i like the first one better

portrait view

I too like the dreamy effect, but I'd have to say I like the composition of #1 better. The portrait shot is just too busy for my liking - maybe a tighter crop?

I like the portrait shot, however it needs straightening imo - oh and while your there maybe move those distracting tree branches which are blocking your wonderful view

i'm another sucker for the dreamy look, but i am undecided as to portrait of landscape

I love these effects.. can you please explain to a newbie how each style is acheived. Ta!

I prefer the smooth water over the "frozen action" water, and really like the foreground in the bottom of the third photo. I feel that having this foreground gives a lot more depth to the image. However, there is something not quite right about the framing of the 3rd photo - and so my favourite of these three is the first one.

I'm not sure what the vertical orientation needs to improve it. Maybe it needs a wider framing (not so tightly cropped) to match the extra depth? After having another look I'm sure that including more of the waterfall on the left of the frame would have improved this third shot.

I love the portrait version, doent look so 'cluttered'? Purakaunui Falls eh, will ahve to look it up and see if I can fit it in on my trip in feb...

MatthewRoberts wrote:I love these effects.. can you please explain to a newbie how each style is acheived. Ta!

Briefly, The first and third use a slow shutter speed so that the motion of the water is blurred. The second uses a fast shutter speed to stop the motion

In more detail, I dropped ISO down to 100ASA and used a polariser and a small aperture to reduce the light coming into the camera. This forced me to use a slow shutter (0.25 for #1, 2.5s for #3) to get the exposure correct. A tripod is essential of course. I would have used a neutral density (ND) filter as well to slow the shutter even more, but I don't have one to fit my current lenses. A neutral density filter is simply a piece of dark grey (NOT coloured!) glass. A polariser fits this description well enough and can be used at a pinch.

In the distant past, using very dark ND filters, I used to take photos of roads using exposures lasting several minutes. When developed (I did say distant past), the photos showed the road, but no cars, simply because the road was there all the time, but no car was there long enough to show up on the film.


For #2, I wanted speed, so I took off the Pol, opened up the aperture and increased the ISO (I think - I am not at my computer and can't check all the EXIF.) Shutter speed was 1/250s to freeze the motion of the water. I still used the tripod as I didn't want any camera shake. I also used delay shutter so there was no vibration from the mirror.

CoryH wrote:I love the portrait version, doent look so 'cluttered'? Purakaunui Falls eh, will ahve to look it up and see if I can fit it in on my trip in feb...

It's in the Catlins in the far south of South Island. Some beautiful scenery & almost no people. Down side of that was we ran out of LPG and had to detour over 150Km to get a refill.

Mr Darcy wrote:

MatthewRoberts wrote:I love these effects.. can you please explain to a newbie how each style is acheived. Ta!

Briefly, The first and third use a slow shutter speed so that the motion of the water is blurred. The second uses a fast shutter speed to stop the motion

In more detail, I dropped ISO down to 100ASA and used a polariser and a small aperture to reduce the light coming into the camera. This forced me to use a slow shutter (0.25 for #1, 2.5s for #3) to get the exposure correct. A tripod is essential of course. I would have used a neutral density (ND) filter as well to slow the shutter even more, but I don't have one to fit my current lenses. A neutral density filter is simply a piece of dark grey (NOT coloured!) glass. A polariser fits this description well enough and can be used at a pinch.

In the distant past, using very dark ND filters, I used to take photos of roads using exposures lasting several minutes. When developed (I did say distant past), the photos showed the road, but no cars, simply because the road was there all the time, but no car was there long enough to show up on the film.


For #2, I wanted speed, so I took off the Pol, opened up the aperture and increased the ISO (I think - I am not at my computer and can't check all the EXIF.) Shutter speed was 1/250s to freeze the motion of the water. I still used the tripod as I didn't want any camera shake. I also used delay shutter so there was no vibration from the mirror.

Thanks you for spending the time explaining here. Looks like I will need a fair bit of effort while learning to reproduce my own creations - which is all fun of course!

I do prefer the first image, not sure why, just do.

I think there's got to be a good 'half-way' point between the 'lace' and 'dream' style. The latter always looks so artificial; I suppose it's personal. I would be interested in what others think.

ewm3 wrote:I think there's got to be a good 'half-way' point between the 'lace' and 'dream' style. The latter always looks so artificial; I suppose it's personal. I would be interested in what others think.

The more I look at these photos, the more I am coming to the same conclusion. I would like to capture, as far as possible, the experience of being there. Neither style achieves this. There must be some halfway point that manages this feat of legerdemain. Though I'm worried it's called "movie"