Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,536   Posts: 1,646,014   Online: 973
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    Thanasis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    392
    From my experience, anything above four minutes will make the water in a fairly still body of lapping water (such as a swimming pool) look like glass. The more turbulent the water, the more of that delicate "misty" effect you will get on the water. It's definitely worth doing a few experiments to see how these effects can be controlled.

  2. #12
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    In Les' book, he breaks an indicated 4 second exposure into 32 exposures at 1/125 ...
    Slight typo? 1/125 sec. is 8 milliseconds. 32 times this is 256 milliseconds. Mathematically, it would take 500 exposures of 1/125 to make 4 seconds, without allowance for reciprocity failure. It would of course also be possible to make multiple exposures, some at 1/125, some at slower speeds.

    Regards,

    David

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,353
    The direction of the flow also is important. If it is flowing perpendicularly to the camera, 1/4 sec (or longer if that's the desired effect) will do the job. If it's moving directly toward the camera, you may need longer minimum exposures to get that flowing look. In the end, the look you like the best is the best. It takes some experimentation.

    Peter Gomena

  4. #14
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,671
    Images
    18
    I would agree with Steve above. However, I would probably go as slow as 1 second. Anything more than that, and you start losing detail, and the water just becomes a blob.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  5. #15
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington View Post
    Slight typo? 1/125 sec. is 8 milliseconds. 32 times this is 256 milliseconds. Mathematically, it would take 500 exposures of 1/125 to make 4 seconds, without allowance for reciprocity failure. It would of course also be possible to make multiple exposures, some at 1/125, some at slower speeds.

    Regards,

    David
    Sorry, it was late and I made a mistake. The indicated exposure was 1/4 second, not 4 seconds. So Les did his math correctly and I should have been asleep in bed rather than at the keyboard. Thanks for the correction.

    There are two other waterfall photos in Les' book. One used a single 4 second exposure and the other used 20 one second exposures for an indicated 20 second exposure.

    Lee
    Last edited by Lee L; 10-11-2007 at 07:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    I'll add my preference for 1/4s to 1s as my favourite range as it retains the look of water whilst giving the swirling effect. Longer exposures can make it look like milk, loosing much detail which I do not find as attractive. That of course is just a personal preference.

    Bob.

  7. #17
    Travis Nunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,603
    Images
    32
    I generally stick with either 1/2 second or 1 second, depending on the conditions of the water. Like Robert, I try to avoid the "white blob" and keep the detail in the water.
    ____________________________________________
    Searching my way to perplexion

  8. #18
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Tripod+slowfilm+small aperature+ND filters
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  9. #19
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,893
    Images
    40
    This waterfall was taken at 2 seconds. A large falls from a long distance. Might be too "silky" for some folks, not enough for others.

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...to=28426&cat=2

    As with any "special effect", the image should not depend on it to carry it...but instead add to the over-all image (or one runs the risk of creating another example of a cliche).

    vaughn
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Yosemite falls 3 4-12-07.jpg  

  10. #20
    djkloss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Erie, Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    662
    Images
    56
    Steve Sherman's photograph of Farmington River is an amazing example of slow water. I saw this on his website quite some time ago. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain how he did it. These are just some of the details he gave with the image. Like I said... amazing! Way to go Steve!

    5x7 Deardorrf Camera 210mm Symar S lens. F32 @ 15 minutes. Dev. HC110 Normal....
    Look for Farmington River.....
    http://steve-sherman.com/newengland_main.htm

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin