dogzilla

I was hiking the other day and saw these waterfalls, one big, the other not so big.

kurty[B]

Great shots dogzilla! The first is my favorite. I love moving water shots. I wish I had a way to force my camera to keep the lens open for much longer than it does.

The middle shot is great, the small waterfall on the right looks perfect. I think the one on the left had too much exposure and is starting to look simply like a white wall.

Either way, fantastic shots, and looks like an absolutely incredible place for a hike!

dogzilla

I checked the originals using the Raw editor in Photoshop CS2 and with Raw Shooter Essentials and the exposures are ok. I think what happened is that the exposure time was so long that the detail in the water got blurred out. I shot the second one at F14, 1.6 second ISO 100. The interesting thing is the first one was shot at F8, 2.5 second and ISO 100. The center of that one might have the same problem, but the left side is good.

These were shot in northwest CT and eastern NY. I was hoping to get some early foliage shots but Saturday was a very dark, foggy day so I ended up with waterfall shots.

Sultana

WOW! What beautiful pictures! I love the first one, with the different qualities of moving water--it looks unreal.

Thank you so much for sharing. My day is better now.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

skibum

From looking at it, 2 things happened. The exposures are good overall. The histogram would show it as near perfect. Since shot 2 is the one in question we will talk it (the other 2 are great). It would show as balanced. The dark rocks and shadows work against the white water to even things out (according to the camera). The water is slightly overexposed. Between that slight overexposure and the moving water it shows as very bright with little detail.

A quick hit with the burn tool, or lowering highlight contrast in rawshooters might bring out a little detail and balance the white a little, but its all preference. If I did anything it would be burn it just a hair on the lower section of water.

Very nicely shot.

bernadette

How fun! I can't wait to try a longer exposure of moving water.
I'm just barely beginning to understand this exposure stuff. I have a lot yet to learn.

__________________
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.

dogzilla

Here's a couple more from a different waterfall today. Both were shot at 1/20 second, ISO 400, the first at f10, the second at f6.3.

I like these a little better since at 1/20 sec to 1/30/sec I get the moving water effect, but no so much like cotton candy effect as my first pictures here have.





I tried both using the burn tool and adjusting highlight contrast in rawshooter. The burn tool lowered the brightness of the lower falls but didn't bring back any detail. I suspect the detail from the jpeg was gone. I did get detail back by adjusting highlight contrast in rawshooter. So, I think that even though there was no indicator telling me highlights were blown out, they still were blown out somewhat.

This tip will be helpful to me. Thank you.