Shooting Waterfalls

[grouseking]

First, here is mine.



Usually I just try to point and shoot at waterfalls, but then I read up a little on the correct ways to shoot, and I tried to mimic that, but as usual, I couldn't remember the rules. Guess I'll bring some paper next time.

Also, this image was shot without a tripod, and I can see how having one would help to make this image clearer, since I took several others and they were incredible blurry.

Comments please.

grouseking

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I like this shot, personally. Just enough blur. I often use the self-timer and prop the camera on a rock to achieve the desired motion blur without blurring the rocks.

I have found that 1/15 to 1/10th of a second is about right for fast-moving falls or water. More than that and it looks over done - there isn't individual detail or it gets blown out. It may be a personal preference here, or there may be other rules, but this is a good place to start.

Tim

 

[Grumpy]

Nicely done photo.

I don't think there are any "rules" for shooting waterfalls. I'd suggest trying different techniques/approaches, to see what you like. Today's preference seems to be for shots in which the falling water is motion-blurred to one degree or another by using slower shutter speeds. Your photo seems to have that about right.

G.

 

[w7xman]

I think this shot works well. The exposure is spot on, now hot spots or deep shadows...and nice even light. A tripod, polarizer and slightly longer exposure might make this pop a bit more...

Personal preference is key for waterfalls. I try to get a shutter speed of about 1/4 second for my shots, but that is ofcourse, not always possible.

When shooting at 1/4, tripods are a must. That, or balancing the camera on a sturdy object, which, at waterfalls, can be precarious.

In order to get the shutter speed down, I prefer not to stop down, but instead use ND filters to cut the light. They are just grey filters that act like sunglasses for the lens.

Other filters...polarizers are also very helpful. They cut glare off the water, and reduce contrasts, which there usually is around white water and black rocks...

I always expose for the highlights in waterfalls, and if necessary, try to recover the shadows. Much easier than trying to recover blown out hightlights.

The biggest tip though...shoot waterfalls in EVEN light...cloudy days are best for waterfalls. Mottled sunshine creates a dynamic range far to extreme for cameras to capture.

Hope that helps!

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Beautiful!

All the best advice is already given. I just want to chime in that I think it is a well composed and shot picture of a beautiful little waterfall. Excellent!

KDT

 

[NeoAkela]

I'll also agree with all of the above, especially the tips from w7xman. Sometimes, on a nice cloudy day with diffuse lighting, you can get a great water flow effect with only a rock to prop your camera on, the ISO at it's lowest, and the slowest speed you can step down to without blowing out the highlights (at least not too much!)

When I finally started to figure out what I was doing and managed to get the technique somewhat though my thick skull, I stepped up to a circular polarizer and an ND filter as part of my gear. As w7xman said, the ND filter steps down the light, kind of like sunglasses. The higher the rating on the ND filter, the more the light is filtered out, which allows you to shoot a longer exposure time without letting too much light in and ruining the shot. Which ND filter you use and how long you shoot will be highly affected by the amount of daylight you have on the subject. I find that an ND4 works well for most occasions.

The circular polarizer can be used in addition to the ND to allow you to remove the reflections in the water, thus getting a nice clear view of the bottom of the water body, instead of a white blurred glare of the water flow (sometimes!)

When you are going to all this trouble, a tripod (or sturdy rock facing the right direction at the right height) is a must. Using the lowest ISO is also good, as it will deliver the sharpest image. Use a self-timer delay to avoid the small amount of shake that you give the camera when pushing the shutter button (about 5 seconds is a good amount of delay). Turn off the image stabilizer, as that can also cause some internal movement in the camera.

I try to expose for the lighter areas of the waterfall (as has already been mentioned). I find it best to experiment with various shutter speeds, changing the aperture to compensate. Usually, the slower the speed you can get, the "cooler" the shot looks, though it is possible to overdo it! Each waterfall situation has it's own prime combination... it is best to take many shots and then decide for yourself which one "works" for you. I have one shot I took when it was almost dark with a 15-second exposure that looked great, and another shot at another waterfall with a 1 second exposure that I felt was overdone. So it really is a matter of experimentation.

By the way, very nice shot! I like the exposure - I'd be curious if a slightly slower shutter speed would have made it just a bit better - but it is a very beautiful photo just as it is!

My apologies if I have only said over the very same things that the last few excellent folks already said - I can get a bit carried away!

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I like the photo very much. You have a nice unobstructed view of the falls, and you have the amount blur I tend to prefer in waterfall photos. The exposure is good; the water is white and not gray.

As already mentioned polarizer filters are very useful with waterfalls. Typically the reflection of sunlight and/or sky will cause glare on the wet rocks near a waterfall. This glare may be present even on heavy overcast days. This glare may detract attention from the waterfall and may reduce the effectiveness of a photo. When dialed to the proper position a polarizer filter will reduce this glare. The polarizer will also saturate the color of any foliage in a waterfall photo -- by reducing the microscopic bits of glare on each shiny foliage surface (it is the same process as with the glare on wet shiny rocks).

I will add some notes on motion blur shortly.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

To blur or not to blur; The effect of shutter speed and lens focal length

Two basic waterfall photo effects:

• Slow shutter speeds blur the motion producing yielding a soft dreamy effect. However, extremely slow shutter speeds may produce a whiteout and become ineffective.
• Fast shutter speeds freeze the motion. On breezy days the water will appear to be falling in sheets, and that will convey power as opposed the softness of motion blur.

Imagine taking a picture of Niagara Falls or another high volume waterfall. If you blur the motion in a photo, you will render the falls into a total whiteout (or 12-13% gray-out if you do not compensate the exposure). There will be no texture in the falling water. The solution is to freeze the motion with a fast shutter speed which will also convey the great power of the waterfall.

Motion blur in waterfalls is a matter of how far each drop of water falls through the frame while the camera's shutter is open. Shutter speed and lens focal length are both factors. Try photographing a waterfall using a wide angle and telephoto lens from the same viewing position. Use the same shutter speed with both lenses. The two photos will have radically different amounts of motion blur. In each case the water droplets fell the same distance, but the field of view in the two lenses are different. A droplet may fall across the entire frame in the telephoto photo, but perhaps only a small portion of the frame with the wide angle.

Your distance from the waterfall is also a factor, although this may not be too relevant for hiking photography. Our position is usually dictated by the presence of trees and other obstacles. By necessity we are generally very close in order to get a clear view of the waterfall. However, if you could move further from or closer to the waterfall you would change the field of view of your photo in a manner similar to using different lens focal lengths.

Some guidelines I developed while using a 35mm film camera. For point and shoot and cropped-view dSLR cameras you would need to convert your lens focal lengths to equivalent 35mm camera focal lengths using your crop factor multiplier. Or more simply; just use the suggested shutter speeds for the various lens types (wide angle, telephoto, etc.).

For motion blur use a shutter speed that is 3-4 stops slower than 1/lens_focal_length. For example:

1/2 - 1 second with a 17mm lens (ultra wide angle)
1/4 - 1/2 second with a 24mm lens (wide angle)
1/8 - 1/4 second with a 50mm lens (normal concentrated view)
1/30 - 1/15 second with a 200mm lens (telephoto)​

The method to freeze water motion is the converse of the blur method. Use a shutter speed that is 3-4 stops faster than 1/lens_focal_length. For example:

1/125 - 1/250 second with a 17mm lens (ultra wide angle)
1/250 - 1/500 second with a 24mm lens (wide angle)
1/500 - 1/1000 second with a 50mm lens (normal concentrated view)
1/2000 - 1/4000 second with a 200mm lens (telephoto)​

For completeness: I find that shutter speeds close to 1/lens_focal_length produce a particularly unattractive amount of motion blur. The streaks appear short and staccato. This is much less pleasing than either the blur or freeze effects above.

YMMV, do some experimentation to find what pleases you. Personal preference comes into play. It is always a good idea to take multiple photos in the field, perhaps bracketing both shutter speed and exposure. You can then select the most pleasing from the multiple images. Note: exposure can be easily altered in post processing while the motion blur cannot.

I do apologize for the length of this dissertation, and yes it would be better with some photo examples.

 

[Grumpy]

Excellent primer on photographing waterfalls, Mark S! It is one of those "print out and save" posts.

G.

 

[grouseking]

A big thanks to everyone for the advice! I will def keep it in mind and save that stuff for a cloudy day.