creek pics taken last week

[panthrcat]

well I finally tore away from the house renos for a few hours,, my daughter and I went up north and come across this creek,, got set up with tripod, shutter release, and mirror up feature to get these,, tell me what you think please.

Sue

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

a side note after I previewed post:

I think I could bump up the saturation a bit,, seems kind of wishy washy?

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Sue were you using a polarizer or just an ND filter?

They just look a little dark,which is what will happen if you let the camera meter off the white of the rushing water-your camera will try to turn it gray to find a happy medium-which is what it's supposed to do in anything but manual mode.

What shutter speed was this? 1/4sec? I can't see the exif data.

On a side note,I may be wrong but it looks like you might need to hit the sensor with your blower as it looks like dust is visible in the water in a few shots-I think.

[Dbl]

Yes, MM I agree these are a bit underexposed. You have some serious aperture here f/40! There is a limitation you start running into called defraction.

Take a look at the photography basic sticky and you will find this quote.

Quote:

There is a very narrow band of optimal apertures at which to shoot with a digital camera, where diffraction and optical aberrations come into play. If you stop down too little, optical aberrations limit the image quality and depth of field. Stopping down too far to increase depth of field results in diffraction, which degrades image contrast and resolution.

The ideal aperture range for best image quality with a digital DSLR lies between 2 stops down from maximum aperture and f/8, typically f/5.6 and f/8 for lenses f/2.8 and faster.

So you really need to use a ND filter to keep your aperture down to a more realistic range to keep some sharpness AND contrast to the image. You have bright white water and dark shadows in the back of your creek. Tough for any camera! You could bracket the shot and use a lightened shot to help with your creek and still keep the water from blowing out. There are a few other tricks you can use but involve layers and layer masks to bring out the best of both.

I really prefer the composition of the first couple. I does indeed look like a few dust bunnies on a few of the shots. Really good effort on these, keep shooting!

[finnbay]

Good info, Dan, and I agree-a great effort. I'd also have to agree on the first two being my faves as to comp.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

What exif viewer you guys using? I get nothing.

[Dbl]

Sue, here is 30 seconds of photoshop work on the first image. I duplicated the image on a new layer, changed that mode of that layer to "screen". Duplicated that layer and then added a layer mask to that layer and painted back some of the darkness and contrast. A quick vibrance increase and here you have it. Vibrance is to taste I went a bit overboard here to give you an idea how much color is in your original image.

Let me know if this OK, if not I will just delete my re-work. Just wanted to show you the image has potential and with a bit more time and work then the 30 seconds I put into it!

[Dbl]

What exif viewer you guys using? I get nothing.

EXIF Viewer plug in for FF and IE.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Thanks Dan.

Quote:

I duplicated the image on a new layer, changed that mode of that layer to "screen". Duplicated that layer and then added a layer mask to that layer and painted back some of the darkness and contrast. A quick vibrance increase and here you have it.

This is why I have to get it right in camera-I have no clue what you just said!!

[Dbl]

LOL, sorry MM are you using photoshop? I will work out a quick screen shot if you want showing what has been done.

[MN Shutterbug]

I use Kuso Exif Viewer and can see it all. Nice redo, Dan. Nice eye, Sue.

[panthrcat]

thanks for the help and the replies, although I'm not able to read them all in depth at this point, I gotta dash off to work,, but I have to appologize for not putting down the particulars for you all,, without knowing off the top of my head what the aperture and shutter speeds (ISO) was, I'll get that to you tonight, one some I used my 28-135 with a polorizer filter,, don't have a ND yet. I'm just messin around here,, and was fairly happy with what I got,, and I did notice the dust particle in the white too,,

again, thank you! I do appreciate it!

Sue

[Steve Foss]

Sue, I really like the compositions in the first and final images. As soon as I saw those parallel curtains of water in one of the middle images my thought was "will she zoom in on those to compose more tightly?"

And you did.

When I do fuzzy water work, I almost always strive to get non-moving elements in the frame such as rocks, logs, and/or leaves, because that really sets off the moving water. And you did that too.

Dan is dead on about diffraction. In my fuzzy water work I don't worry much about it, however. Not trying to be dismissive, just that I've found other factors more important in those long exposure cases. I've been able (at f32 to f40) apertures to get the static elements sharp enough to suit me, and if needed it's a simple matter to lasso them in photoshop and give them a bit of individual sharpness. A rock solid tripod and absolutely no camera movement are vital here, of course, to ensure you get whatever sharpness the camera/lens combo is capable of at those aperture settings. There have been times that I had to put the tripod on fairly squishy ground to get the comp I needed, and in those situations with long exposures, even shifting my weight on my feet near the tripod can cause small movements and compromise sharpness. And a too-light tripod will tremble minutely and also soften the image. Great to see you used the remote shutter release and MLU!

Looking at the exif, I see you used exposure compensation to underexpose from 1.3 to 2 full stops on some of these. That's part of the reason these appear dark. In the case of the 6 second exposure that was 2 stops underexposed, if you'd have reversed that for a normal exposure you'd have gotten your shutter open 24 seconds, which makes a REALLY interesting effect.

I use the histogram extensively to check exposure and highlights when doing this kind of very contrasty work. What I've settled on after a lot of trial and error is to allow the highlights to be blown out as much as a full stop or a bit more. When we're talking fuzzy water, that single stop of shutter speed can have a huge impact. The amount of cottony look changes mightily from 4 seconds to 8 seconds, and by overexposing a bit and allowing blown highlights I can get that added time.

I don't worry about the highlights if they are not too badly blown because I can recover them on the photoshop preview screen. It also opens up the shadow areas.

As a side note, at those tiny apertures it'll be almost impossible to rid your sensor of every dust particle that'll show up in the bright portions of the image. The narrower your aperture, the more those will show. At f4 you wouldn't have seen a single one of them.

And one way to avoid needed additional filters is to do this type of work before sunrise or after sunset, when the ambient light is low enough to get the shutter speeds needed. It can be a bit of an adventure walking back out of the woods after dark with a ton of camera gear, for sure, and that's one reason it's always a good idea to bring a companion.

Thanks for sharing these, Sue!

Really nice photoshop work, Dan. I've found that, even if things are captured as well as possible in-camera, the dynamic range of white fuzzy water highlights stretching all the way into deep shadows is more than the sensor can render in pleasing way, and for optimum results there'll be some PS work needed. On my images like these, it's most often recovering the highlights and making sure the shadows are opened up.

[cliffy]

Sue, great pics...I wish I knew how to do this.

I dont mean to hijack this thread....but I am pretty new to the photography world...could someone post directions for how to get this "cotton water". I have a Canon XSI, good tripod but no ND filter. Will I need to get one if I want to shoot this type of thing in mid-day light?

[Steve Foss]

Cliffy, we've posted that before, but it does keep coming up. I'm going to post something in the sticky thread on photo basics and beyond when I've got some time today so it'll stay there for everyone to have available.

[cliffy]

That would be great. Thanks for doing it.

Cliffy

[Steve Foss]

Done.

Here.

[bassNspear]

Great shots Sue! Looks liek soemthign that should be in my liveinroom!

[Birdsong]

Great shots Sue! Looks liek soemthign that should be in my liveinroom!

You need a creek in your livingroom? No, I know what you mean, I tend to like photos a little moodier, so the exposure of these works for me. That being said, the tutorials have been very helpful and a learning experience for all of us, and I understand the reasons for exposing differently. I like the diagonals you have going, Sue. Maybe I need a creek in my livingroom.