'Taking the waters'

There have been many shots of flowing water (including my own) posted on the Gallery recently (not surprising given the recent English weather !)

However, there appears to be varied opinions as to what shutter speeds give the best results ?

Most people appear to opt for long exposures (1s or more) as this blurs the moving water to create an 'effect'. This is fine if you have a tripod with you (or can otherwise hold yourself 'rock solid' for the duration of the exposure) but when travelling 'light' with family I am normally restricted to 'hand held'.

I've tried a compromise of 1/2s or 1/3s and this is OK when I can find something rigid to rest on but the the K-r flashes 'f/32' and the result is an overexposed shot. (Although it is usually possible to correct the RAW file in PP).

As a rule I tend to opt for around 1/25s on the scientific basis that this equates closely to the eye's persistence of vision and is why TV and video use 25fps frame rates. It is also easier to hold the camera steady for this 'faster' shutter speed.

I suppose it is partly the effect you are looking for ?

To me 1/25s captures the scene 'as the eye sees it' but the longer exposures around 1s or more are perhaps seen as more 'artistic ?

I'd be grateful for your comments ?

Peter

It depends on the actual speed of the moving water of course, but I think a 'middle ground' approach usually works best. I'm not a fan of those very smooth and blurred effects, but just enough to show the flowing motion is best I think. The range from say 1/4 to 1/20th would work in many situations I think.

With the aperture issue, it looks like the metered exposure requires a smaller aperture than the lens can provide. If you're hitting this limit and can't allow the exposure to be brighter (say if the highlights are already blown out) then the best option is to use filters to cut the light back - either a polariser or ND will do that, or even both together if needed. If you can allow the exposure to be brighter then dial in some + exposure compensation until the flashing f value stops and settles. You might be able be recover the highlights in RAW software if its not too much or too important part of the image.

But handholding at these shutter speeds, especially if you're balancing on rocks or crouching down near the water is always going to be a challenge, so if its just not happening then you'll have to compromise on the moving effect and increase the shutter speed,

Good luck trying with your water shots, and lets see some when you're ready!

Hi Peter

The answer is 'there is no right or wrong shutter speed' to use when photographing water. It depends on the effect you wish to achieve and the conditions pertaining at the time. For example, with very rough seas splashing against the rocks a fast shutter can be very effective. For a waterfall or similar, anything from 'very sharp' to 'very milky' can work well. I've recently posted a couple of shots with 'middle ground' shutter speeds, where the water is blurred, but not excessively so and there is some detail and pattern in the flow. I find this works well for shots that need to look a little 'abstract' or 'artistic', but others may disagree. See below:







I would say that a tripod is a 'must' for this type of photography, especially considering that it's often quite dark in the UK when the water's flowing at its best / most dramatic, also as you've pointed out, hand-holding is difficult at slowish shutter speeds.

A polarising filter is also an essential in my bag and it serves several useful purposes. It decreases the light by a stop or two, it enhances colours and it reduces reflections. Usually, the reduction in light entering the lens that a polariser gives is enough for me; I rarely use ND filters for photographing water, unless I go the whole hog and use a '10 stopper' for a really milky effect.

Hope this is useful!

Regards
David