How to blur water...?

[JohnC]

I've done very little of it. For big powerful waterfalls as seen in Yosemite I prefer faster shutter speeds which will capture the power of the larger falls. I haven't really had much opportunity to capture many of the slower moving falls, creeks or rivers. My just completed trip to Tuolumne Meadows provided just such a challenge. Being so inexperienced at it, I ended up with a lot of duds but hopefully some useful experience.

Below are two edits of the same shot. I really don't know if either captures the flow as well as it could/should have, but I'd like some feedback on the pros or cons of either edit. Please don't worry about hurting my feelings. I'd rather learn something than just have people pat me on the back and smile. ;-).

The image was run through Nik Silver Effects Pro. After getting it back into Lightroom I made a few LR adjustments as well. But the key is that the only difference between the two edits is that the second one has a -45 Clarity adjustment (in LR) which the first does not. Kind of a Mickey Mouse way to add some blur after the fact. ;-)

So, what are some thoughts as to how slow (or not) a blur should be?

FYI, the shot is of the Dana fork of the Tuolumne River taken near the TM Wilderness office.

Thanks for you feedback.

 

[Ben Egbert]

The first has more definition and is the one I prefer. But this is an unusual way to get this effect. I normally use shutter speed to get the effect I want. 1/5 to 1/10 is usually my range. But I often bracket for faster and slower and check my results at home.

I may need to stop down, or add a CP or ND filter to lower the shutter speed. A cloudy day helps.

Many times two different shots at the same speed produce different patterns with one being better, so I take several and review the results

 

[AlanLichty]

At least in my own photography blur in water flows is entirely dictated by the shutter speed. I have experimented a lot through the years but I typically find I get the best results somewhere between 1/8 sec and 1 second with most ending up in the 1/4 to 1/6 second range. A lot depends on the nature of the water flow where really fast water works better at the faster end of the speeds described above.

When I first start shooting at any given spot I chimp the shots carefully while trying to home in on the effect I want by trying different shutter speeds and taking test shots. That is rarely as good as seeing the images on your own screen at home but by shooting several sets of images you can go through them later at home to double check which speeds go the best results.

I have not personally done much with trying to create blur in water motion in post processing.

 

[JohnC]

The first has more definition and is the one I prefer. But this is an unusual way to get this effect. I normally use shutter speed to get the effect I want. 1/5 to 1/10 is usually my range. But I often bracket for faster and slower and check my results at home.

I may need to stop down, or add a CP or ND filter to lower the shutter speed. A cloudy day helps.

Many times two different shots at the same speed produce different patterns with one being better, so I take several and review the results

Thanks Ben. You make some good points. For the record I like the first better as well. The second one was not by design but only done after the fact to see how it would look. I actually use that technique sometimes on my landscapes to soften a look where I think it is appropriate.

I should have perhaps mentioned I was using a 6 stop ND filter and the there was shade from the trees as well as the sun popping in and out. I did change F stops to affect time and I tried many shutter speeds. Mostly I was between 1/2 second and 1.6 seconds and went from F11 all the way to F29 but mostly stayed between F16-F22. That shot was 1.3 seconds at F16. Slower than about 1 second in this case seemed to leave the water to harsh and not smooth. But then that's the whole question I struggle with regarding what speed provides the "nicest" blur.

I also learned quickly the point you made that the same shot with exactly the same settings can produce different (better or worse) results just from the pattern of the water flow. That's a handy piece of information to remember.

 

[JohnC]

At least in my own photography blur in water flows is entirely dictated by the shutter speed. I have experimented a lot through the years but I typically find I get the best results somewhere between 1/8 sec and 1 second with most ending up in the 1/4 to 1/6 second range. A lot depends on the nature of the water flow where really fast water works better at the faster end of the speeds described above.

When I first start shooting at any given spot I chimp the shots carefully while trying to home in on the effect I want by trying different shutter speeds and taking test shots. That is rarely as good as seeing the images on your own screen at home but by shooting several sets of images you can go through them later at home to double check which speeds go the best results.

I have not personally done much with trying to create blur in water motion in post processing.

Thanks Alan. I was chimping a lot but you're right, nothing looks the same on the back of camera as it does on a monitor. And I also realized that the speed of the water has quite the impact on what the blur will look like. It was definitely the slower part of the season for this river and the flow was much slower than early in the year.

 

[AlanLichty]

Thanks Alan. I was chimping a lot but you're right, nothing looks the same on the back of camera as it does on a monitor. And I also realized that the speed of the water has quite the impact on what the blur will look like. It was definitely the slower part of the season for this river and the flow was much slower than early in the year.

Sounds like you have a good starting point for the next round. As you have noted even the same stream from almost the same tripod holes will give you different results depending on the speed of the water flow which can be/is highly seasonal. Digital storage is heap so it's always better to shoot sets of images at different target speeds and then you can select what turned out to be optimal when you get back home. Much easier to delete the crud shots later at home than to run back and try to replicate the light that tempted you into shooting the first time.

 

[JohnC]

Sounds like you have a good starting point for the next round. As you have noted even the same stream from almost the same tripod holes will give you different results depending on the speed of the water flow which can be/is highly seasonal. Digital storage is heap so it's always better to shoot sets of images at different target speeds and then you can select what turned out to be optimal when you get back home. Much easier to delete the crud shots later at home than to run back and try to replicate the light that tempted you into shooting the first time.

Yeah, that's for sure. But it also helps to have a good understanding and starting point. That shot was the third location over the trip where I stopped and spent a good hour shooting water within a few feet of my original stopping point. I feel like I already had a little better idea what I wanted to do compared to the first two attempts.

Another problem to deal with was that it was very difficult to set up for the shots I wanted. I was on rocks that were never level anywhere. At times I couldn't situate myself close enough to the tripod to see the shot which made me have to pull back the tripod until there was enough room for me and the tripod to share enough space without either of us ending up falling in the water. Kind of disappointing at times, but definitely worth erring on the side of safety.

 

[AlanLichty]

I am quite grateful that I typically shoot alone so there is no one around to take shots of just how ungraceful my circumstance ends up when the only thing that counts is what I get my viewfinder to see

 

[JimFox]

Hey John,

Your use of the term "water blur" kind of threw me off. As I was reading your first post and then Ben's, I was starting to think that you had used a Blur filter in LR or Photoshop. I was going to suggest that you that "Water Motion" (I think a better term then Water Blur) is determined by your shutter speed. Then I read where you had shot at different shutter speeds and that you hadn't applied some kind of blurring filter.

I only bring that up, because different terms do cause us to think different ways.

So, Alan and Ben have made good comments in regards to your wanting to capture Water Motion. But to add my 2 cents also.

Generally speaking 1/5th of a second shutter speed is my sweet spot. I will always shoot that shutter speed with water. I will then depending on the flow of the water shoot it a little faster or a little slower. Almost never ever going below 1 second.

The problem with shooting 1 second or longer is three fold.

First, a 1 second shot rarely looks any different then a 2 second shot or a 3 second shot or a.... you get the point.

Second, when shooting in the 1+ second shutter speed range the water looses all definition and turns into what we call milk, because it looks like spilled milk.

Third, these solid milk areas tend to now overexpose and create hot spots in your water, which of course you want to avoid.

The issue I have with both of your images is something you just have to watch and pay attention to. Look in your image and find the last point where anything "looks" like it's in focus? It's like almost halfway up your image. So for me the bottom part of the image looks blurry and out of focus. What I have found when composing, I like to set it up so that I am getting pour offs that come off sharp edged rocks, or there are rocks in the stream at the bottom, just about anything so that there is a place at the bottom where it looks to be in focus. With the Water Motion, it can come across as not being in focus since it's moving and there is nothing to look sharp. So just adjust your composition, to get elements in it to maintain visually sharp objects throughout the frame.

That's my thoughts John.

And as mentioned, this is one of those things where you are only going to get better at it by purposely going and shooting creeks and rivers more.

 

[JohnC]

Thanks Jim. Getting the composition right is always a big issue for me. And obviously more so with water as the subject since I haven't done much of it. I did notice that too much water creates those solid areas which aren't always so desirable. But I find a larger area of context with some white can make for a very nice photo in the right situations. I think it depends a lot on what your surrounding environment is. That was where I had some of my duds. The first day I shot along the river I got too much of the big white spots and not enough interesting context to make it work. I was quite disappointed with those results after the fact.

I do have some other shots that are more narrowly focused, but I'm not sure they are much better. The loop I followed was quite beautiful, but the water was quite flat so it was hard to find those edges where the water just poured off. And where they did, I could not get the best angle or zoom to them from where I was. I do think I could have gotten some better shots if I had walked out into the water and set up my tripod in the river, but I'm gonna hold off on that approach until I feel like I know what I'm doing. ;-)

BTW, are there any good local creeks and rivers to go practice on?

 

[Kyle Jones]

For what it is worth, I think that the shutter speed in the first shot looks about right. The water is somewhat smoothed but you can still see detail in it.

Like others have noted, I generally take shots at a bunch of shutter speeds so I can see what I think looks best. Based on what I see on the back of the camera, I'll usually take several "identical" shots at the one that looks best so I can pick my favorite. I'll often blend multiple exposures together, taking the best part of each or blending detail from a faster shutter speed into an area that is too white.

I won't stop down smaller than f/16. If that is still too fast, I'll take several exposures at the slowest speed I can manage and then average them in a smart object in Photoshop to blur the water further. Just some tools to play with...

 

[JimFox]

Thanks Jim. Getting the composition right is always a big issue for me. And obviously more so with water as the subject since I haven't done much of it. I did notice that too much water creates those solid areas which aren't always so desirable. But I find a larger area of context with some white can make for a very nice photo in the right situations. I think it depends a lot on what your surrounding environment is. That was where I had some of my duds. The first day I shot along the river I got too much of the big white spots and not enough interesting context to make it work. I was quite disappointed with those results after the fact.

I do have some other shots that are more narrowly focused, but I'm not sure they are much better. The loop I followed was quite beautiful, but the water was quite flat so it was hard to find those edges where the water just poured off. And where they did, I could not get the best angle or zoom to them from where I was. I do think I could have gotten some better shots if I had walked out into the water and set up my tripod in the river, but I'm gonna hold off on that approach until I feel like I know what I'm doing. ;-)

BTW, are there any good local creeks and rivers to go practice on?

Not sure if there is anything local John. The only thing local that I shoot is at the Beach. Otherwise all of my river or creek shooting would be mainly done in Yosemite or the Eastern Sierra. Sequoia is also an option. You said you were going up to the Eastern Sierra for fall colors, you can go shoot McGee Creek, it will have water and fall colors. Also Minaret Falls in the Devil's Postpile is a place you can shoot some water. There is the waterfall leading into the Twin lakes in Mammoth. So there will be a lot you can practice on up there.

 

[JohnC]

Thanks Kyle. It sounds like I'm starting to do some of the right things. Getting more familiar with relating the back of the camera view to the larger monitor view is definitely a big key.

 

[JohnC]

Not sure if there is anything local John. The only thing local that I shoot is at the Beach. Otherwise all of my river or creek shooting would be mainly done in Yosemite or the Eastern Sierra. Sequoia is also an option. You said you were going up to the Eastern Sierra for fall colors, you can go shoot McGee Creek, it will have water and fall colors. Also Minaret Falls in the Devil's Postpile is a place you can shoot some water. There is the waterfall leading into the Twin lakes in Mammoth. So there will be a lot you can practice on up there.

Yeah, I'd like to get more water in my fall colors. I've been thinking of how to better do that this year. Lakes or streams, I think water really adds to many of those shots. Most of the higher elevations where the lakes are, tend to be past peak when I'm there. Guess we'll see how it goes this time. I'm due for some fall color luck. The last two years were on the disappointing side.

 

[Ken Rennie]

I hope that you don't mind a newcomer chipping in. I usually find that sunshine on the water destroys all of the subtle tones and textures so wait for clouds or visit when the water will be in shade. Milky water tends to evoke strong opinions with many photographers hating it. Strangely enough when non photographers see my "milky water" shots they seldom comment negatively on it. Unless you are going for the totally bland, negative space look I find that the "correct" shutter speed is one where flow is shown but texture is retained. This shutter speed is dependant upon the speed of the water and the focal length of the lens but 1s to 1/10s tends to be the ball park figure unless we are talking up huge waterfalls. I regularly shoot the same scene at multiple shutter speeds and then mask in the best parts of each. I could have 5s or 6s for slow moving especially if you like the trails produced by flowing bubbles or the effects of swirling bubbles. In fast moving rapids or little falls I could use 1/100s but I need to avoid the sudden appearance of too much detail grabbing your attention. It is possible to return texture to bland areas of water in post processing with lots of mid tone contrast or a little cloning at reduced opacity from areas with texture. In the end it is a matter of learning how to produce different looks and then figuring out what look you like you could, of course, reverse the last 2 statements. I hope that this helps Ken

 

[JohnC]

Thanks Ken. You make some good points. I have notice that clouds and shade tend to work better. I think I really just need to make an effort to shoot more water and get more experience with it.

 

[Ken Rennie]

Thanks Ken. You make some good points. I have notice that clouds and shade tend to work better. I think I really just need to make an effort to shoot more water and get more experience with it.

John I have spent the last 2 years trying to get flowing water looking good. I thought that I had it pretty good until I saw Hans Strand's work. Now I know that I have a way to go. One other thing British rivers are much smaller than American ones therefore I use longer shutter speeds plus I like an almost milky look. Ken

 

[JohnC]

John I have spent the last 2 years trying to get flowing water looking good. I thought that I had it pretty good until I saw Hans Strand's work. Now I know that I have a way to go. One other thing British rivers are much smaller than American ones therefore I use longer shutter speeds plus I like an almost milky look. Ken

I did learn rather quickly that the speed of the water has a major impact on the proper shutter speed, as well as the fact that every given composition varies in the actual flow/fall of the water. Not to mention potential patterns created by flowing/pooling water are never twice the same at the same shutter speed. Learning seems to be a never ending process.