The how to shoot a waterfall scene ?

[David]

Went down to Mt Field National Park in Tasmania in May last year thinking it would not be a waste of money and effort cause I thought I knew what I was doing...I came back with this

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4568784868_629ee37c0d.jpg

What had I done: I exposed for the whole area and got a nice shiny rock bed, well lit up foreground and a totally blown out white waterfall... damn.

So, lesson learnt at Horseshoe Falls, I made sure I exposed for the waterfall when it came to Russell Falls and came up with this

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4568167177_80fd825105.jpg

Better (but still not quite right) exposure for the waterfall but the detail in the surrounding fiolage is lost.. dark and shadowy and gloomy. doh.

So I ask around and people tell me do two exposures, one exposing for the waterfall and another exposing for the surrounding greenery and shadows etc and blend them together using Photomatix, for example.

What I end up with is a compromise result, the waterfall somewhere between correct and half correctly exposed and a background fiolage area I could improve with shadows adjustments etc but the waterfall would still remain only half right... double damn.

So, back to the drawing board. Okay I tell myself, I am going to expose only for the highlighted area (ie the waterfall) and learn how to recover the shadowy areas in Photoshop and shoot in RAW because I am told you can recover shadows/dark areas but not blown out over exposed areas.

Still with me ? Okay, so now I am thinking what IF I want to shoot the waterfall in a frozen slow exposure state....okay I tell myself, grab an ND filter that slows down the shutter speed by 3 stops (an ND8) and whack that on and hope there is not too much wind around because the surrounding fiolage is going to move and blur the shot.

But now I have an even darker foreground area that I doubt Photoshop can provide 3 stops of recovery for.. am I right ? Triple damn.

So, I hear someone say, don't use a bloody ND8 3s stopper, use an ND4 2 stopper or ND2 1 stopper AND remember you probably don't have to go past x shutter speed to get a frozen waterfall effect anyway. That is, you may be asking for a longer than necessary shutter speed and risking movement blur for no good reason.....

Hmmm.. how am I doing ?

The reason I am asking is that I am about to go visiting a new area with waterfalls I have not been to before and travelling a fair way to get there and I do not want to waste this trip like I did in Tassie last year.

My plan is to invest in an ND2 and ND4 Neutral Density Filter, try them at X waterfall exposing for the waterfall in the shot, do some 'testing' to see how fast a shutter speed I can get away with to get a frozen effect and bump up the ISO to 200 or 400 and drop the apeture down to F11 or F8 to help things along. I typically shoot waterfalls with my Canon 10-22mm lens at the wide end most of the time because I love the greenery.

ALL COMMENTS AND SUGGSTIONS TO TRY IN CAMERA OR ON THE PUTER VERY WELCOME.

[Wayne]

An interesting dilemma!

I don't get much of a chance to shoot anything with falling water, because out here we have drought, then flood. Flood provides much water, but, can't access anywhere because all the roads are cut.

I'd be interested in how some people achieve their great results we often see here, but I would prob try a bracket of 3 shots and HDR in Photomatix.

[ameerat42]

Well, at least you went; you saw; and you spoke about it.
I liked both shots, technicalities aside. I thought I could glean something of your appreciation of the scenes. Am.

[Philr]

Polariser is always handy to David when shooting waterfalls. Multiple exposures can work well too. Instead of taking only 2 try 3+. Photomatix is a great program, hard to master at first but once you get the hang of it its easy. If you havn't read the help/instructions with photomatix its a must. It will put you on the right track straight away, explaining what each slider does etc. Play with it, experiment and see what works for you. What you get straight away when you load your shots is often quite an average looking shot that can take a fair bit of fine tuning.

Also try to get there early in the morning/late in the arvo as the light is not so harsh. If you have a ND400 try that as well, you will be able to get a longer exposure if you are there in the middle of the day.

[ricktas]

I use a polariser and either my ND4 or ND8, depending on how bright a day it is. Remember there is no 'right' way to photograph anything. If there was we would all be taking the same shots. Photography is a creative art form, do your own interpretation by coming up with your own ideas about how you want the waterfalls to look.

[DAdeGroot]

I typically only shoot them under the right conditions (overcast - the heavier the better), and use a polariser.

I have done the ND400 thing during the day, and you get very smooth water, but if there's ANY sun in the scene you will get blow-outs or underexposed areas.

[David]

Polariser is always handy to David when shooting waterfalls. Multiple exposures can work well too. Instead of taking only 2 try 3+. Photomatix is a great program, hard to master at first but once you get the hang of it its easy. If you havn't read the help/instructions with photomatix its a must

Thanks Phil: I have the full Photomatix program and have not read any instructions at all- well doh ...yeah I guess so. Think I will leave the camera in the bag for a couple of weeks before that waterfall trip and learn how to use the program properly. I have to agree about the best time and conditions for waterfalls being early morning or late afternoon and under an overcast sky: I will get hold of the ND400 for daytime shooting though, good idea. Seems I am going to have to go the multiple exposure road still and blend them together on the computer later to get first class results.



I use a polariser and either my ND4 or ND8, depending on how bright a day it is. Remember there is no 'right' way to photograph anything. If there was we would all be taking the same shots. Photography is a creative art form, do your own interpretation by coming up with your own ideas about how you want the waterfalls to look.

Thanks Rick: I never thought to use a CPL at a waterfall, mostly used them for seascapes in the past but I assume you use one on waterfalls to take the edge of the light reflections on top of the water (hence less blown out whites ?) and expose any interesting rocks etc underneath the water at the base of the waterfall. ..Makes sense to me and I guess breaking away from the cliche frozen water waterfall is a very good idea too. That is the problem with waterfalls, all shot a million times by a million people: how do u make urs new ish...


I typically only shoot them under the right conditions (overcast - the heavier the better), and use a polariser.

I have done the ND400 thing during the day, and you get very smooth water, but if there's ANY sun in the scene you will get blow-outs or underexposed areas.

Thanks for the ideas Dave.. another vote for the use of a polariser and ND400 in daylight conditions assuming the sun is well out of the way.

[Philr]

If you get adventurous even try a HDR with the ND400, sometimes works a treat!

[peterb666]

I have only done a couple of waterfall shots and depending on the ambiant light, would use either an ND8 or stacked ND8 and ND4 to get an exposure longer than 1/15s.

I have some 1.2 and 2.4 ND filters on order (ND16 and ND256????) but then I do stuff with really long exposures in other settings. I could imagine using that 2.4/ND256 filter if the waterfall in some conditions but as others have mentioned, dynamic range is an issue when you have bright sun and deep shadow in the shot.

[David]

I have only done a couple of waterfall shots and depending on the ambiant light, would use either an ND8 or stacked ND8 and ND4 to get an exposure longer than 1/15s.

I have some 1.2 and 2.4 ND filters on order (ND16 and ND256????) but then I do stuff with really long exposures in other settings. I could imagine using that 2.4/ND256 filter if the waterfall in some conditions but as others have mentioned, dynamic range is an issue when you have bright sun and deep shadow in the shot.

Thanks Peter: yes sir, the dynamic range in typical waterfall scenes is the biggest issue for me to overcome so paying attention to the sky conditions is going to be critical to success I think after all the gr8 advise and thoughts posted here.

[peterb666]

BTW David, I think your 2nd shot is pretty good. You have found a good compromise in the exposure and while your assessment is spot on. As a photo, it would work for most people.

Cheers!

[arthurking83]

....

Still with me ? Okay, so now I am thinking what IF I want to shoot the waterfall in a frozen slow exposure state....okay I tell myself, grab an ND filter that slows down the shutter speed by 3 stops (an ND8) and whack that on and hope there is not too much wind around because the surrounding fiolage is going to move and blur the shot.

But now I have an even darker foreground area that I doubt Photoshop can provide 3 stops of recovery for.. am I right ? Triple damn....

Nope! you lost me here!

A ND filter will alter the exposure exactly the same way forboth the highlights and the shadows.. so while you think you're software will struggle with even darker shadows, it's not. the exposure difference between the highlights and the shadows wil be exactly the same as without the ND filter!

A correctly used CPL will actually cut the highlight requirement.. even if it's only by 1/2 a stop.. it's better to have than to not have that small advantage.
If there's water on the green foliage the first thing you'll notice when using the CPL correctly is that the green foliage will change from a whit-ish green colour to a more vivid green colour. Generally speaking you should spot meter a neutral exposure of the best looking green, as green is grey in the colour world :p
Alternatively you could over expose the brightenst detail in the scene by an amount too much more than the ability fo your raw processor to recover highlight detail. That should be somewhere about 1-2 stops overexposed. because you shot in raw, you then use negative exposure compensation to recover detail in those highlights and bringthem back to either just at the point of clipping, or leave them just over. 1/2 stop of clippled highlights in flowing water is not going to burn anyone's eyes out!
The idea is to try to get the greate4st amount of dynamic range available onto your image sensor! in PP, you'll also recover as much shadow detail as you can too.

In image #2, I would have used a 2 or 3stop GND filter to keep the blown highlights in the upper deck in check too. slide the GND only as far as required to keep the highlights at a decent point, and be prepared to recover some of the darkended foliage along the top of the image too. easy enough.

ona side note: you use of terminiology is the wrong way round too. With a long exposure you're not freezing the flow of water you're making it more flowing, so you want to say:


.... so now I am thinking what IF I want to shoot the waterfall in a flowing slow exposure state

"freezing" the water means a faster shutter speed to freeze the motion of the water.

hope that helps.

[David]

Nope! you lost me here!
ona side note: you use of terminiology is the wrong way round too. With a long exposure you're not freezing the flow of water you're making it more flowing, so you want to say:



"freezing" the water means a faster shutter speed to freeze the motion of the water.

hope that helps.

Thanks Arthur: might take me a month to absorb the information but again as always you give me plenty to think about and guidance I would take ages to learn from experience. Thank you:)

[nc1183]

I remember reading a Practical Photography mag a few years ago, that had an article about waterfall photography in it.

One technique they used was the multiple exposure one with a bit of a twist. They metered the shot to get a 1/10th shutter speed, then manually set the camera to 1/100th and the same aperture and took 100 photos one on top of the other, was Nikon F5, but you could probably do similar with digital these days, just take your 100 separate pics then combine in Photomatix

[Steve Axford]

I shot this one a couple of years back. Had the same problems as you describe, so I used HDR on an overcast day (1 exposure for the shadows and one for the highlights). No filters, just 2 exposures and wet feet.

http://steveaxford.smugmug.com/Australasia/Tasmania/Untitled-HDR-01/268421509_U3EE8-L.jpg

[Darvidanoar]

I tend to do bracketed shots so that I can recover some detail if the water is too far gone.

This tutorial (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=25151) might help. It was written shortly after the last Curtis Falls meet (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=25004) I went on.

[David]

I remember reading a Practical Photography mag a few years ago, that had an article about waterfall photography in it.

One technique they used was the multiple exposure one with a bit of a twist. They metered the shot to get a 1/10th shutter speed, then manually set the camera to 1/100th and the same aperture and took 100 photos one on top of the other, was Nikon F5, but you could probably do similar with digital these days, just take your 100 separate pics then combine in Photomatix

Well I do have Photomatix Pro, better learn how to use it. thanks for the tip.



I shot this one a couple of years back. Had the same problems as you describe, so I used HDR on an overcast day (1 exposure for the shadows and one for the highlights). No filters, just 2 exposures and wet feet.

That image is just beautiful and at the level I want to achieve Steve, thanks for sharing it.. awesome image.

http://steveaxford.smugmug.com/Australasia/Tasmania/Untitled-HDR-01/268421509_U3EE8-L.jpg


I tend to do bracketed shots so that I can recover some detail if the water is too far gone.

This tutorial (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=25151) might help. It was written shortly after the last Curtis Falls meet (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=25004) I went on.

Thanks David, I will check out the tutorial :th3:

[Steve Axford]

Just a hint - don't expect the automatic software to produce the result you want. It is just one step in the process and should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[beaco]

HDR is one option. But I generally find a tripod or timer delay and a slower shutter seems to get reasonable results. If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.

[Darvidanoar]

... If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.
I have read a few people say this on this forum recently and I'm not sure I understand the concept. Can someone explain how a CPL is used to reduce dynamic range?

[David]

I have read a few people say this on this forum recently and I'm not sure I understand the concept. Can someone explain how a CPL is used to reduce dynamic range?

I wonder about that myself: I have had it suggested to me I could use both the ND (that would give the sky a better chance of not blowing out I suppose) and a CPL at the same time but I have not tried that yet David. Do you think that would work....hmm.. I am going to test the notion in my back yard today and see how it goes.

[Darvidanoar]

I wonder about that myself: I have had it suggested to me I could use both the ND (that would give the sky a better chance of not blowing out I suppose) and a CPL at the same time but I have not tried that yet David. Do you think that would work....hmm.. I am going to test the notion in my back yard today and see how it goes.
Me too. I am going to have a play this weekend and shoot some shots with and without the CPL and look at the histograms...

[nc1183]

Well I do have Photomatix Pro, better learn how to use it. thanks for the tip.





No worries, from what i remember of the final image, it gave you frozen water droplets and blurred patches of water.

[Steve Axford]

A CPL won't work with an overcast sky. You'll have to be very lucky to get a blue sky on an overcast day - which is what you need for a waterfall shot.

[DAdeGroot]

A CPL won't work with an overcast sky. You'll have to be very lucky to get a blue sky on an overcast day - which is what you need for a waterfall shot.

I beg to differ. A CPL does still work on an overcast day to reduce reflections on the water and wet rocks (and foliage). It also gives you another 1-1.5 stops of light loss for slower shutters.

[Steve Axford]

It still doesn't work to reduce blowouts on an overcast sky. It may work to reduce water reflections, but that wasn't my point.

[Darvidanoar]

... I am going to have a play this weekend and shoot some shots with and without the CPL and look at the histograms...

Ok, it is a sunny morning and a good opportunity to check out the effect of a CPL.

Looking at these images (SOOC), the effect of the CPL is pretty much as expected, the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

So yes, in certain contitions where you might be able to position yourself at 90degrees to the direction of the sunlight, a CPL would reduce the glare in the sky and the specular highlights. However, in the situation we were in at Cedar creek and Curtis falls, David, with the sun directly behind; I don't think a CPL would have helped much.

[David]

Lets go back to the OP--

I noted that shots taken at a waterfall without any CPL or ND filter attached on a clear blue sky day result in blown out skies and not very good results in the end in the areas where sunlight reflects on leaves, rocks, water at the base, etc etc.

Beaco suggested trying a polarising filter...


HDR is one option. But I generally find a tripod or timer delay and a slower shutter seems to get reasonable results. If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.

Darvidanoar and I were puzzled by this notion which has been suggested by other people in other places before, so David did an experiment and the results speak for themselves really.



Ok, it is a sunny morning and a good opportunity to check out the effect of a CPL.

Looking at these images (SOOC), the effect of the CPL is pretty much as expected, the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

So yes, in certain conditions where you might be able to position yourself at 90degrees to the direction of the sunlight, a CPL would reduce the glare in the sky and the specular highlights. However, in the situation we were in at Cedar creek and Curtis falls, David, with the sun directly behind; I don't think a CPL would have helped much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noted, but I also noticed the left side of the sky is bluer than the left, a dead give away for the use of a CPL.

Conclusion: A CPL is not a good tool for dealing with blown out skies at a waterfall scene and where it could help would only be if you can get 90 degrees to the sun and only on the left hand side of the frame..its value fades fast. These images challenge the view that a CPL will help with blown out skies

Steve noted that a CPL will do very little or nothing to help the blown out skies above a waterfall shot; Darvidnoar has demonstrated that this is right.

Dave De Groote A CPL will
work on an overcast day to reduce reflections on the water and wet rocks (and foliage). It also gives you another 1-1.5 stops of light loss for slower shutters.

Steve was thinking of skies above the waterfall, Dave De was focussing on the sunlight reflections below the skyline which definitely do go a long way towards evaporating with a CPL on the front of the lens.

Arthur, I always assume he is right; tells me a correctly used CPL will reduce the highlight requirement by half a stop (good for the waterfalls exposure) at least which is better than nothing and Arthur also says an ND will NOT fix my exposure problems at waterfalls ..

" A ND filter will alter the exposure exactly the same way for both the highlights and the shadows.. so while you think you're software will struggle with even darker shadows, it's not. the exposure difference between the highlights and the shadows will be exactly the same as without the ND filter ".

So, out with the ND filter for waterfalls and in with the CPL and go back home if the sky is not overcast and learn how to blend multiple exposures together in case it all goes pear shaped on site.

Thanks all for your comments and ideas: the exploration of waterfall photography continues.

[knumbnutz]

Hi David,
What works best for me is
1. only shoot when its overcast - best light and you dont get blues in the water.
2. Circpolarizer - reduces reflections, slows the shutter speed, saturates the colours and darkens the blacks
3. Tripod - dont bother without one.

I've never used ND filters which is not to say I wouldnt, just never needed too.

It always works. It greens up the folage and smooths the water. You can multiexpose as well if you want.

FWIW, Russell Falls is a hard one to shoot anyhow, the wind howls through the falls and makes slower speed and multiexposures useless almost.

Here is mine from Horseshoe during heavy rain and one from another falls -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/3894890514_d1cff494a9.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/3894073641_c57f9f0716.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/3078937729_98d54613df.jpg

[arnica]

Now just wondering when taking these shots ... anyone have any issues with mozzies? I was over in NZ last year and didn't bring any insect repellent with me ..

[Darvidanoar]

Noted, but I also noticed the left side of the sky is bluer than the left, a dead give away for the use of a CPL.


=


... the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced ...

[David]

=

Yes indeed, we are on the same page ; CPL is not much use for the context of waterfall shooting in respect to overcoming blown out (non cloudy/overcast) skies :th3:

[David]

Hi David,
What works best for me is
1. only shoot when its overcast - best light and you dont get blues in the water.
2. Circpolarizer - reduces reflections, slows the shutter speed, saturates the colours and darkens the blacks
3. Tripod - dont bother without one.

I've never used ND filters which is not to say I wouldnt, just never needed too.

It always works. It greens up the folage and smooths the water. You can multiexpose as well if you want.

FWIW, Russell Falls is a hard one to shoot anyhow, the wind howls through the falls and makes slower speed and multiexposures useless almost.



Thanks for sharing your thoughts and really beautiful images too. keeps me confident I can get it right one day with more practice.

I think you absolutely right, we shot the Cedar Creek and other falls recently on a bright blue sky day.. I was concerned about A. the LATE start and B. The fact it would not be overcast but I think in those conditions it is smarter to shoot below the skyline or in areas surrounded with greenery or not use traditional waterfall scene framing...live and learn I guess :th3:

[Darvidanoar]

Yes indeed, we are on the same page ; CPL is not much use for the context of waterfall shooting in respect to overcoming blown out (non cloudy/overcast) skies :th3:

emmm, I actually think I said in certain situations it could be useful. (a tool to have in your arsenal). Perhaps it didn't come across like that...

[David]

emmm, I actually think I said in certain situations it could be useful. (a tool to have in your arsenal). Perhaps it didn't come across like that...

:confused013

Okay Dave, explain to me if you will. Even if you get the idealised 90 degree angle to the sun you get an uneven colour range across the skyline so it is obvious a CPL has been used..if that is a useful result for skies above a waterfall I am scratching my head to see how. Are you suggesting that if we go to a waterfall when it is 90 degrees to the sun we might get some value out of whacking on a CPL for a blown out skyline in clear conditions. I think I would rather wait until the conditions are overcast before I go near a waterfall again because figuring out when a waterfall scene is going to be 90 degrees to the sun so a CPL 'could' be useful would be a wasted trip to a place I may not see again for awhile.

I will use a CPL for waterfall shots, but from what I can tell they give you no real solution to blown our skies on days which are not overcast... and that is what I was looking to address here amongst other things.

[Darvidanoar]

Sure, perhaps a picture will help:

at 17mm, the field of view is about 67 degrees. The area to the left of this scene is the point where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the direction light entering the lens and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

I'm saying, if the conditions permit the CPL to work for you, then why not use it?

[Jhpomyzen]

Just seen your waterfall shots And taken in all that you have to say about this kind of photography. I am looking forward to trying out these tips very soon Thank you for your expertise and wisdom.
John H

[Analog6]

In Adobe Camera Raw set the contrast to 0 (default is usually 25). It does help to extract a little detail from the shadows

[David]

Sure, perhaps a picture will help:

at 17mm, the field of view is about 67 degrees. The area to the left of this scene is the point where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the direction light entering the lens and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

I'm saying, if the conditions permit the CPL to work for you, then why not use it?

Sorry Dave, I am so thick yes you have to draw me a blueprint sometimes :lol: Great explanation and I get it now, doh.

[lonnie]

Thank you for the diagram; that's really helpful.