shutter speed

[Neil007]

Hi All

I'm just wondering if anyone can help me out with a problem i have. I tried to take a picture of a waterfall with a slow shutter speed. When I took the picture, the picture was to bright. How can I tone the brightness down?

I own a Sony A350 if this helps.

Cheers

Neil

[Nod]

Just using the camera and lens you already have, turn the ISO down to as small a number as possible (probably 100 or 200) then set the camera to Av (or whatever Sony use to describe Aperture priority) and set it to as high a number as possible (probably 32). Hopefully, that'll give you a shutter speed low enough to give some blurring of the water (easily seen on the screen on the back of the camera). At the long shutter speeds you'll need (around 1/4 of a second may be long enough, depending on how "creamy" you want the water to look), a tripod or other support will be essential. If you still can't get a long enough shutter speed, you'll need a Neutral Density filter which will reduce the amount of light getting to the sensor and will allow you to use slower speeds.

[Neil007]

Hi Nod

Thanks for your advice. I went out this afternoon and tried it out. You can view it here www.flickr.com/bennett1973 If you look under Bradgate Park you will find it. It took a few attempts and I think I might have to get a filter as I would like too have the shutter speed slower. Once again thanks for your advice.

Neil

[Northerner]

Yeah a ND filter won't be too pricey and can be very useful for things like this. If you have a polarising filter you an use that to 'slow things down' too - although you will obviously get the polarising effect also.

Graham

[benji]

I wouldn't use an aperture of f/32 because of light diffraction. It will make your image look very soft. No big deal for the creamy-looking water, but more for details next to the water if you have some (ie: rocks, leaves, ground, trees, etc...).
Not sure about the ND filter either.

What's probably happened is, if anything, you used too long an exposure, and you have blown the highlights (that is: the silky water that becomes white with the long exposure, and ends up being over-exposed). This wouldn't happen with higher shutter speeds, as the water would retain its natural colour, which is naturally more "mid-toney".

In full daylight, I would stick a polariser on, rather than a ND. The pola will help tone down the bright relections on the water, and you should have a more even tonal range (that in itself will be easier to meter, and will allow a slightly longer exposure, therefore no need to stop down too far). Then you won't blow the highlights so much. The pola will give you at least 1/2 to 1 stop to compensate for if you set it appropriatly. Much better option than the ND IMHO.
In short, I would set my aperture to f/11 (or f/16 if push comes to shove).

Importantly, remember that too long an exposure is not necessarily a good thing for this creamy-water effect (the exception to this would be if you wanted to have a misty look on the surface of the sea, then very long exposures are necessary).

Anything over 1 sec is just surplus to requirements 99% of the time.

I generally settle for 1/2sec to 1sec (obviously it also depends on the speed of the flow of water). Sometimes, even 1/4sec is enough if it flows quickly.
Try that, you'll find that any exposure longer than that does not add anything whatsoever, it's just detrimental and surplus to requirements.

Obviously, work with the lowest ISO rating as possible.

Unless, you have an incredible amount of light (ie: full sunshine, no clouds, no shadows, no trees, etc.), these settings should be ideal. I've never had a probelm doing this type of shot this way, even at 2 o'clock in the afternoon (in the UK, that is, not Australia).

HIH

Benji

[Neil007]

Thanks for all your help. All this is new to me and everyday i'm learning new stuff. I have so much to learn and I would like to say again thanks to everyones comments.

Neil

[Monobod]

Why not set shutter speed in shutter priority mode and then let the camera pick the aperture, it is bound to be small for good depth of field?