Blurring Water and the Sky to Create Motion..?

photoshop · 29 Jun 2009 at 21:52

Guys,

Whats the best settings to use when taking pictures of water when it is flowing or the sky to create that look of motion rather than it looking static?

Example:

I've seen tutorials on youtube where they use Shutter Priority mode with a setting of around 1/4 of a second but when i do this i just get a picture filled with white light - like a sheet of plain white paper!

What am i doing wrong?

Camera is Sony A200

SteveOBHave · 29 Jun 2009 at 21:58

I think there may be too much light for the cameras minimum aperture. In really bright light you may want to think about using something like the Cokin P ND filters to gain an extra few stops.

http://www.cokin.co.uk/pages/cokinP.htm

photoshop · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:01

what settings should i be using though????

Derek W · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:04

are you reducing the aperture when you slow down the shutter speed so less light enters the camera?

SteveOBHave · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:08

Derek W said:
are you reducing the aperture when you slow down the shutter speed so less light enters the camera?

Is that not the end result of using Shutter Priority? The camera automatically manages the aperture?

peterattheboro · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:11

2" exposure / F24 with an ND4 filter,

That's a rough guess.

It's not difficult to find this sweet spot but I believe what I suggested is a good starting point.

SteveOBHave · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:12

photoshop said:
what settings should i be using though????

Ideally you'd want somewhere around .25 to .5 of a second - of course the longer the shutter is open for the smoother the effect.

With sky it is even harder and you really would need to have a decent filter on the front of the lens to stop it down. You also would need a fairly windy day to get the cloud movement.

This was a 2 second exposure at F22:

Raikiri · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:17

Buy a ND filter, it's the only way you'll be able to achieve the effect you're after in bright conditions.

Derek W · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:21

SteveOBHave said:
Is that not the end result of using Shutter Priority? The camera automatically manages the aperture?

I probably should have read what setting he was using before writing what i did

PESolution · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:33

you need to close the aperture, and if it is still too bright with the shutter speed length you require then a filter to take away some of the light is where you must head next

photoshop · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:44

My god this is complicating. Damn

Lovely pic SteveOBHave. Thats exactly what i am talking about!

What ND filter should i be looking at buying?
Lens is Sigma 10/20mm

Yarde · 29 Jun 2009 at 22:52

I tried doing this a High Force Waterfall but it was a really sunny day, about mid day, so sun was at its highest! and no matter what i did, it'd still come out (but super overexposed, but there was detail there) but i don't want to start buying filters until i get my new lens) incase the thread size changes

I can't help but feel that it would look so much better if it was blurred

just to get an idea on how sunny / busy it was

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yarde_1/3564145484/

don't comment on the crapness of the pano

Trick · 29 Jun 2009 at 23:10

These are the best ones I've managed on bright days without the aid of an ND filter.

photoshop · 29 Jun 2009 at 23:35

Trick said:
These are the best ones I've managed on bright days without the aid of an ND filter.

What settings did you use?

Raikiri · 30 Jun 2009 at 00:24

photoshop said:
What settings did you use?

It really isn't relelvent, it will differ greatly depending on the lighting conditions

I would imagine 1-3 seconds, ISO100, F/22 or similar though.

D.P. · 30 Jun 2009 at 06:47

peterattheboro said:
2" exposure / F24 with an ND4 filter,

That's a rough guess.

It's not difficult to find this sweet spot but I believe what I suggested is a good starting point.

Completely difracted images. Never stop down below f/16 on a 6mp sensor, f/14 on 8mp, f/12 on 12mp.

D.P. · 30 Jun 2009 at 06:57

photoshop said:
My god this is complicating. Damn

Lovely pic SteveOBHave. Thats exactly what i am talking about!

What ND filter should i be looking at buying?
Lens is Sigma 10/20mm

I suggest you buy the book "understanding exposure" as this is really not complicated at all if you actually understand exposure.

It is obvious you need to be in shutter priority and take an exposure slow enough such that the water blurs. The exact time will depend on how much bur you want, the speed of the water, distance and angle. Experiment. Generally 1/4 to 2 seconds works well. This also means a good tripod setup is absolutely required, and also you don't want a widny day with tree movement.

The problem comes from the fact that in daylight you have too much light. The simple solution is to use a filter that reduces the amount of light entering the lens, thus you need an ND filter. ND = Neutral Density + grey.

Also don't forget that you can stack a Circular Polariser with the ND filter. This gives bluer skies and brighter colours. Alternatively you can try to save sky detail by using a strong ND Graduated filter.

Hodders · 30 Jun 2009 at 09:32

D.P. said:
Completely difracted images. Never stop down below f/16 on a 6mp sensor, f/14 on 8mp, f/12 on 12mp.

Can you explain what you mean by this ?

Messiah Khan · 30 Jun 2009 at 10:00

Hodders said:
Can you explain what you mean by this ?

Beyond a certain point, the smaller the aperture the softer the image will become due to diffraction. Therefore it os good practise to never stop lower than about f10, and use hyperfocal distance to achievce the depth of field you need.

Having said that you can still get perfectly usable shots with f16 etc, but if possible I would avoid it.

jr1104 · 30 Jun 2009 at 10:49

Messiah Khan said:
Beyond a certain point, the smaller the aperture the softer the image will become due to diffraction. Therefore it os good practise to never stop lower than about f10, and use hyperfocal distance to achievce the depth of field you need.

Having said that you can still get perfectly usable shots with f16 etc, but if possible I would avoid it.

That's interesting to know, I've never realised that before. When you say use hyperfocal distance, do you mean focus closer so that the depth of field still brings the foreground into focus?