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!
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!
It's a great picture, although I am certain the 15-minute exposure was dictated by (very low) light levels and not by the desire for blur. It would take a braver man than me to feel confident that the leaves on the far bank were going to render sharply and not start waving in the wind after a few minutes, whereas the blur is no more than could have been obtained with a few seconds' exposure!
There is an old rule that indicates the best shutter speed for moving water is determined by the reciprocal of the fraction of the picture that consists of water. If water is 1/100 of the picture use 100seconds. If water is 1/2 of the picture then use two seconds.
I always use this rule when I just can't think of the right shutter speed. At other times I guess.
__________________ Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
It's a great picture, although I am certain the 15-minute exposure was dictated by (very low) light levels and not by the desire for blur. It would take a braver man than me to feel confident that the leaves on the far bank were going to render sharply and not start waving in the wind after a few minutes, whereas the blur is no more than could have been obtained with a few seconds' exposure!
Welcome to my world!
Photographing in the redwoods usually means exposures of 15 seconds to 30 minutes. One's hair on arms and legs (I usually wear shorts) become hypersenstitive wind meters!
Mid-day, as the down slope winds reverse themselves and become up canyon winds, one can often sneak in a photo or two during the stillness of the change.
There is an old rule that indicates the best shutter speed for moving water is determined by the reciprocal of the fraction of the picture that consists of water. If water is 1/100 of the picture use 100seconds. If water is 1/2 of the picture then use two seconds.
Interesting rule of thumb. I'll will have to look through some old photos and see how this rule plays out!
Vaughn
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Photographing in the redwoods usually means exposures of 15 seconds to 30 minutes. One's hair on arms and legs (I usually wear shorts) become hypersenstitive wind meters!
Mid-day, as the down slope winds reverse themselves and become up canyon winds, one can often sneak in a photo or two during the stillness of the change.
Vaughn
There is probably a worthwhile technical point here - if you are shooting with a reasonable 210 lens on 4x5" and applying enough (forward) front tilt to get front to back sharpness, there is actually no need to close down further than f11 or so - in fact, you would probably get a respectable result at full aperture (assuming this is f5.6) or f8. This would arguablly represent an acceptable trade-off against the risk of wind blur with longer exposures!
I agree completely with Bob F. If the water turns to milk the exposure is way to long. I prefer water to appear as water not as a soft stream of something else.
This can be a wonderful process, but is most often over done by picture makers today. So many people today see a an old technique that originally occurred by necessity not a trick. they immediately want to copy it as something new and different. They think I have got to try that! But usually when they get the chance they way over do it. Go ahead and try it but use some common sense.
Water in no way appears in my life the way it is depicted by some photographers. The blurring water captured by the long exposures necessary to make any image in the early days of picture making was not then nor is now in my opinion considered to be a work of fine art!
This post in no way is intended as criticism of any one person who prefers "silkey Milk" to georgous stream water!
It is simply a statement of my preference and opinion.
Shoot short enough to show movement, but not so long as to create the antiquated old time milky look of early camera
works.
Charlie................................
I have a bucket of water standing by in case of flames.:-)
...
I have a bucket of water standing by in case of flames.:-)
I haven't tried the "multi-click method" with a bucket of water, but it has become more or less my "standard method" of dealing with running or falling water.
It gives a result i feel is closer to our perception of streams - as both smooth and sharp at the same time, detailed and soft, and...
__________________
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist Norway
is there a methoid to blur water and still keep the other objects in the picture sharp even if there is a slight wind?
stupid i know , but there might be a way.
mitch
is there a methoid to blur water and still keep the other objects in the picture sharp even if there is a slight wind?
stupid i know , but there might be a way.
mitch
As has been mentioned earlier, it is possible to make an exposure not in one go but in small steps to preserve sharpness. Doing it selectively for different parts of the picture would be much harder! Off the top of my head, one way would be to use (you might have to build) a traveling matte unit, which is a device generally used only with movie cameras to mask off parts of a scene which are exposed at different times (think of any movie where an actor appears on screen twice at the same time in different roles). This would work but would involve more effort than most folks would be willing to make! It wouldn't be too hard to make, though, taking a Cokin filter holder or similar as a basis.
Linear Mode
