Nice shot Bruce. I like the multiple cascades. I enjoyed meeting you and it was nice to have someone along who knew the area and could offer some insight into the different spots.
Tim I've found that it's possible to cheat on the 720 pixel size limit for postings and do on most of my posts. Sorry that worked against you. Thanks everybody for the gracious comments.
Beautiful picture. Looks like you got just the right angle. Would you mind posting your shutter speed? There seems to be a couple of schools of thought for running water. Most use 1+sec to get milky water and some use 1-15 to 1/2 sec to get silky water. Obviously there's no hard rule, but I usually like the silky look best. Any thoughts or opinions?
A nice combination of falling water, moss, and spring greens Bruce. But I'd clone out the leaves on the right because of the motion blur.
Mike - I don't know the difference between milky and silky.. I'd like to know more. I've shot a lot of waterfalls, and I repeatedly choose exposures under 2 seconds most of the time to avoid too much loss of detail. But every location is different.
I like the .5 sec effect here. My thought is usally shoot longer the farther away you are but I will still bracket shutter speeds. What I dont understand is why .5 sec on film wouldn't have shown nearly as much movement.
John, I guess silky and milky aren't good descriptions. I've also heard it described as angel hair water. Tim, the longer exposure with more distance explanation is the answer I was looking for, even though I wasn't sure what the question was. That makes much sense. Close in, you can get "texture" like in Bruce's shot with a .5 sec exposure. Farther away you won't get texture so you might as well go for the smooth look. Thanks.
Discussion
13 repliesBrad
Mike - I don't know the difference between milky and silky.. I'd like to know more. I've shot a lot of waterfalls, and I repeatedly choose exposures under 2 seconds most of the time to avoid too much loss of detail. But every location is different.