water re-take

[john101477]

Ok I took this this weekend. I slowed the shutter to 2 seconds, manually focus. whats could I have done different, better to improve this image

Attachments:

[NCPhotoTrekker]

I think you nailed the shutter speed for the conditions. Everything looks nice and smooth. However, there are really no places in the composition that will take advantage of the slow shutter speed. It is the white water (froth, cascades) which give the silky look.

I have a real big problem with the composition in this one. It looks like no thought was really given to it. The plant looks lout of place, and is big enough to make it a predominant element. Does this mean that the water is out of place? My eyes just go searching through the frame trying to latch onto something that isn't there.

Your focus and depth of field are great however. It looks reasonably sharp front to back. Don't think you could have done any better on this.

You need a polarizer...really badly. There is a lot of glare on the leaves, and the water surface could stand to be toned down just slightly. Don't dial in the full effect of the polarizer though as you will lose the visual clue of water movement since there is no froth in the water to turn silky.

Based on your intentions with this photograph...to work on focus and shutter speed, I would say that you did just fine. As a photograph it leaves me very unaffected.

[john101477]

thanks Greg,I have the CPL for for both lens sizes now. it was on but I never turned the dial. It is kinda to busy to me. I almost think if i had shot a little lower and the two rocks on the left were not there it might have givin it a better flow.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Sept 28, 2009 9:15:19 GMT -5 john101477 said:

thanks Greg,I have the CPL for for both lens sizes now. it was on but I never turned the dial. It is kinda to busy to me. I almost think if i had shot a little lower and the two rocks on the left were not there it might have givin it a better flow.

Yeah, the vegitation just really messes with the flow. Down lower might have worked...would have given it a stronger sense of drama, thats for sure. Try giving the polarizer a twist, you will be amazed at how it can change a picture.

By the way...you do know that you can get step up rings so that you can carry only one filter (that fits the largest diameter lens). Just put the step up ring on your smaller diameter lenses and you can use that same filter. It cuts down on wasted space, weight, and cost.

[john101477]

generally when I am out I have the CPL on anyways because I seem to be always in a heavily lit area. This was just a case of me not paying attention to the reflections because I was in mostly shadow. lower would have worked but my current tripods do not flatten out enough. haha I was in the cold water tripod in the water and as low as it would go. I sooo need to buy one that flattens out more and is tall enough with out the center section when fully extended. it is ok these aluminum ones are gonna bite the dust here soon anyways. I may go after the manfrotto mag like yours, Just gotta afford it first.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

It is a good design, but I think mine has been replaced by a totally carbon fiber model now. The function is the same though. The center colum comes out of the tripod and can be reattached horizontally. This allows you to get very low with the legs spread out horizontally. Depending on your head, you should be able to get the lens at about 12" or less off the ground.

[john101477]

I am shooting for less than 12. what would really work for me is a tripod with no extention tube but that is able to extend to around 72in. The extention tubes on the tripods I have now does little more than tick me off. of course the tripods I have now are 6lb handling capacity and with the extention it just lets to much vibration travel through.

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Its not the extension tube that is responsible for the dropped down height. It is mounted horizontally and the actual tripod is on the ground. It really comes down to what kind of head you are using. Mine is a bit tall...a ballhead would be lower by several inches.

[Steve (FloppyDog)]

Greg's critique pretty much covers the highlights.

One "trick" I've used that works well with vibration problems: I used to shoot multiple exposures in medium and large format, some of which required hours of waiting for the light to change. This meant keeping the camera/tripod in the exact position for the whole shoot. I went down to the pet shop and bought a leash anchor, which is a screw-type of device (looks like a big cork screw) that you screw into the ground. Then I used a couple of rubber cargo tie-downs and anchored the tripod down tight. It sounds weird but works very well.

[john101477]

Thats a heck of an idea Steve. Might have to come up with something in river rock but for a long exposure that would be cool

[NCPhotoTrekker]

Sept 30, 2009 6:45:14 GMT -5 Steve (FloppyDog) said:

Greg's critique pretty much covers the highlights.

One "trick" I've used that works well with vibration problems: I used to shoot multiple exposures in medium and large format, some of which required hours of waiting for the light to change. This meant keeping the camera/tripod in the exact position for the whole shoot. I went down to the pet shop and bought a leash anchor, which is a screw-type of device (looks like a big cork screw) that you screw into the ground. Then I used a couple of rubber cargo tie-downs and anchored the tripod down tight. It sounds weird but works very well.

That is a cool idea. Kind of similar to attaching a strap to the camera and holding the end with your foot. With the right length, you can pull the camera up to eye level and hold it under pressure. This will help you stabilize it as well. I haven't used this method, but it should cure any up and down motion.