At last - waterfall with blurred water!

I've seen a lot of these on the forum and in other places, but haven't been in a position to make a contribution to the genre for various reasons (mainly to do with not having my tripod with me when I have been adjacent to flowing water).

So on Saturday there I found myself at a nice little waterfall in New Ireland WITH TRIPOD! With shaking hands I set it up and…darn it, I had the GX7 camera instead of the G6 with its fully articulated screen which would ave been very handy for the vertical shots.

@ 1/10 sec.

@ 1/10 sec.

@ 1/100 sec.

I have seen various objections to the smoothing effect of extended exposures, so I thought I would do a range. In fact, I did from 1-1/100 sec. The 1/10 (approx.) zone seemed to me to give the truest rendering of what I saw. The 1/100 sec shows rougher water but it is not what I saw, not my impression.

This waterfall never stops. This whole area is uplifted coral which is full of holes and receives a lot of rain so the water is always flowing. Right now, it is the dry (less wet) season so the flow is only moderate.

The fall is about 20 or so meters high. Maybe 30.

I agree with you, Geoff, about the 1/10th second exposure being the truest rendering. I have friends who take seascapes and almost all want to produce a flat misty sea which you can never see. Very nice waterfall, shame it's so far from Europe!

Maggie

maggiemole wrote:

I agree with you, Geoff, about the 1/10th second exposure being the truest rendering. I have friends who take seascapes and almost all want to produce a flat misty sea which you can never see. Very nice waterfall, shame it's so far from Europe!

That, Maggie, is what this is on the site of what is planned to be the world's most exclusive retreat!

But there are backpacker places not far away. Just jump on a plane…

Very nice set. Thanks for tip regarding the speed of the photo. I also find the last one a very nice capture.

richj20 wrote:

Hen3ry wrote:

I have seen various objections to the smoothing effect of extended exposures, so I thought I would do a range. In fact, I did from 1-1/100 sec. The 1/10 (approx.) zone seemed to me to give the truest rendering of what I saw. The 1/100 sec shows rougher water but it is not what I saw, not my impression.

Beautiful waterfall, Geoffrey!

The 1/10 sec. exposure is nice. People often strive for an artistic effect for water with very slow shutter speeds. The photographs by John Sexton of the Merced River in Yosemite National Park are an example:

http://shop.anseladams.com/Merced_River_Happy_Isles_Yosemite_p/17150312.htm

Another example by a different photographer, Paul Chong:

https://paulchongphotography.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/river-water.jpg

Showing a range of shutter speeds is interesting to display the different effects of water. I'm doing a series on the Kern River in the Sequoia National Park, California, showing the different "moods" of the river. A fast shutter speed in the white water areas reveals the power and fury of the river, for example.

Right on with this last sentence, rich. I rejected the 1/100 pic because it was too  powerful and furious for this little waterfall and had totally the wrong feel about it.

But lots of fast moving waster and rapids and falls and whatnot -- yes, yes, yes, faster shutter speed to show the water leaping about and smashing rocks (well, quite slowly smashing rocks! :))

Very nice Geoffrey. If you really want to have some fun  get a 10 stop nd and see what you get. I love silting water but it's certainly not everyone's taste. These are nicely done my friend.

Bill

Geoff

Interesting and thought provoking thread.  Looking at various water pictures, you are right. It's about capturing the mood of the water and 1/10th was right for your waterfalls.

thanks

Andrew

I like # 1 too. Both the rendering and the composition . Nice work Geoff

Yes, 1/10 seems about right for this waterfall. It seems you might have treated yourself to a smooth waterfall earlier in your "career" by simply hand-holding 1/10 when you didn't have your tripod with you. With 3 shots you can probably expect that at least one of them will work out right.

The GX7 has IBIS, does it not?

The earlier mention of the power and fury of a large waterfall is bang on in my view. When the scale of a waterfall is great, what one wants to emphasize is just that, power and fury, so a short SS best produces that result. However, to my artistic eye (forgetting what others may critique) with waterfalls of small volume, a longer exposure produces more interesting results. A small waterfall is really just a bunch of related drips and shot as such doesn't produce an interesting image. Blurring the image spreads the falling water over a broader area of the substrate of the waterfall. I find 1/4s to 1/2s to me produces the best images in these latter situations.

Blown-out white water is the bane of  waterfall photographers.

That's really interesting, rich. The 1/10 gives an impression of great speed, and 1/250 more of power. I would be torn between the two.

morepix wrote:

Yes, 1/10 seems about right for this waterfall. It seems you might have treated yourself to a smooth waterfall earlier in your "career" by simply hand-holding 1/10 when you didn't have your tripod with you. With 3 shots you can probably expect that at least one of them will work out right.

Well, back in the day with film…

The GX7 has IBIS, does it not?

Yes it does, more, and the 12-35 lens used has excellent OIS.

My main problem here has been a lack of waterfalls rather than a total inability to shoot at 1/10.

The first one Geoff, that's the one mate. Very nice look and feel to it and also love the vegetation, wild and I want to be there. Darn nice work.

Certainly go back and try the tripod and at different times of the day. You might even find with the angles and sunlight, a bit of a glow from behind the water or even a slight rainbow. Well worth the time and exploring the angles and sunlight.

All the best over your way, very nicely worked Geoff.

Danny.