First waterfall blur attempt.

[spiritwulf]

Yesterday for Valentine’s Day, Nikki and I joined her parents for a trip to Cedar Falls Park in Fountain Inn South Carolina. When I left the house with my camera, I had no idea where we were headed and definitely hadn’t planned on shooting waterfalls. I didn’t have a tripod, and I don’t have any filters for this lens yet—but that just gives me a reason to go back and try again with the right gear. Ended up adding more clouds in the sky, was bright blue and I didn't like the way it looked.

Shot on a Sony a7RV with a Tamron 17–28mm @ 17 — f/22 | 1/20s | ISO 50 | handheld.

 

[AlanLichty]

You might not have a tripod but you do have a camera with outstanding in body stabilization. This allows you to go to a much lower shutter speed than you might be used to working with but is needed for good motion blur with the water. I usually find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/8s down to 1/2s is optimal depending a lot of how much light you have and the rate of flow in the water. You may find that a neutral density filter is necessary to be able to get speeds like that. Polarizing filters often reduce the light enough to get these kinds of shutter speeds as well. In the case of your shot above you are shooting into the light which makes it a bit harder to go slow enough for a good blur.

 

[Michael13]

If your intention was to make as long as possible an exposure then you did everything right, but to go longer you will need a tripod and filters. I have found that many photographers have a preferred shutter speed range for capturing waterfalls but I say experiment! I tend to go longer (sometimes much longer) when the flow is lower and/or when the composition is simpler. But when the water movement is quicker, I tend to like the faster speeds like Alan mentioned above, and like you have done in your photo. The thing that strikes me about this image, is how OOF the background is. At f22 with an ultra wide-angle lens, you must have focussed very closely to get it that far out. The specular highlights from the direct light coming in from the right side also add to the photo's aggressive feel. With overcast skies, this would have a mellower feel. Well done.

 

[JimFox]

Super cool waterfall Ben! I know Alan, and I am the same, that if that was near us, we would be spending lot's of time there!

I like your angle, and it's a great first attempt, but if you look close the water in your shot is made up of a bunch of short strings of water. If you want it to look like a continuous string, which I would think you would, then as Michael and Alan stated you need to go longer.

My go to shutter speed for water, weather it's a waterfall or a wave crashing at the beach is 1/5th of a second.

You can vary that for sure, and you will get different looks, but my go to speed is 1/5th. So I would suggest you start with that, and then shoot 1/2 sec or 1 second too so you can see what look you like best. But in 99% of the cases using 1/5th of a second will not disappoint.

So you will want to get 2 sets of filters, and not just for shooting water as they have lot's of uses.

1. Circular Polarizer
2. A set of ND filters.

Anyway, I like your image, and it's great to see you out capturing other types of photography. I am sure you will nail the nuances of this down before we know it!

 

[spiritwulf]

You might not have a tripod but you do have a camera with outstanding in body stabilization. This allows you to go to a much lower shutter speed than you might be used to working with but is needed for good motion blur with the water. I usually find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/8s down to 1/2s is optimal depending a lot of how much light you have and the rate of flow in the water. You may find that a neutral density filter is necessary to be able to get speeds like that. Polarizing filters often reduce the light enough to get these kinds of shutter speeds as well. In the case of your shot above you are shooting into the light which makes it a bit harder to go slow enough for a good blur.

Yea I can definitely notice the difference with the stabilization. Especially with macro. I'm getting more consistent shots. There were so many that I liked before but would be off just enough in the details. Thank you for all the tips! I truly do appreciate it.

 

[spiritwulf]

If your intention was to make as long as possible an exposure then you did everything right, but to go longer you will need a tripod and filters. I have found that many photographers have a preferred shutter speed range for capturing waterfalls but I say experiment! I tend to go longer (sometimes much longer) when the flow is lower and/or when the composition is simpler. But when the water movement is quicker, I tend to like the faster speeds like Alan mentioned above, and like you have done in your photo. The thing that strikes me about this image, is how OOF the background is. At f22 with an ultra wide-angle lens, you must have focussed very closely to get it that far out. The specular highlights from the direct light coming in from the right side also add to the photo's aggressive feel. With overcast skies, this would have a mellower feel. Well done.

The blur was added in post. I'm not really sure if that was the correct move or not. Every thing in the scene was sharp originally. I can't wait to get some filters in and try with a lower speed. Photography is so much fun to learn and mess around with. I appreciate your kind words and tips. Can't wait to do it again and share!

 

[spiritwulf]

Super cool waterfall Ben! I know Alan, and I am the same, that if that was near us, we would be spending lot's of time there!

I like your angle, and it's a great first attempt, but if you look close the water in your shot is made up of a bunch of short strings of water. If you want it to look like a continuous string, which I would think you would, then as Michael and Alan stated you need to go longer.

My go to shutter speed for water, weather it's a waterfall or a wave crashing at the beach is 1/5th of a second.

You can vary that for sure, and you will get different looks, but my go to speed is 1/5th. So I would suggest you start with that, and then shoot 1/2 sec or 1 second too so you can see what look you like best. But in 99% of the cases using 1/5th of a second will not disappoint.

So you will want to get 2 sets of filters, and not just for shooting water as they have lot's of uses.

1. Circular Polarizer
2. A set of ND filters.

Anyway, I like your image, and it's great to see you out capturing other types of photography. I am sure you will nail the nuances of this down before we know it!

As always thank you so much for all the time you put into helping me learn photography. I appreciate that! This waterfall is about 45 min from me and I didn't even know it existed lol I'm starting to realize I live a lot closer to some awesome spots. Getting the proper filters and will be attempting again soon! Can't wait.

 

[JimFox]

As always thank you so much for all the time you put into helping me learn photography. I appreciate that! This waterfall is about 45 min from me and I didn't even know it existed lol I'm starting to realize I live a lot closer to some awesome spots. Getting the proper filters and will be attempting again soon! Can't wait.

Hey Ben, it's great to be able to help. You are taking the little morsels of information and coming back with a basket full of great photos!