# silky waterfalls



## SkynetTX (May 8, 2017)

What is the fastest shutter speed I could use to create silky effect of waterfalls with an apeture between f/8 and f/11? Do I need an ND filter with ISO400 (on a sunny day)? If yes, how strong would you recommend?


----------



## geekpower (May 8, 2017)

i don't remember the shutter speed but i know i've been able to take some of those type of shots handheld with the 16-35/4 IS and a 2-stop filter.


----------



## Sharlin (May 8, 2017)

This is handheld at f/22, 1/13s, ISO 100 on an overcast day without a stabilizer. You only get really silky water at shutter speeds of several seconds which is impossible without an ND filter (or, I guess, an f/hundreds pinhole "lens") even on an overcast day, never mind sunny! Remember the Sunny 12 rule.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (May 8, 2017)

Shutter speed selection really is a function of the speed of the water moving and your distance from the fall. I have shot handheld as slow as 1/15th with good "silky" water effects when I was close to the fall. Focal length does come into play also.
My definition of "silky" can be a bit extreme because I tend to like it to be a very soft look.
This is an 8 second shot using an ND filter.



Wildcat Falls Yosemite National Park © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## docsmith (May 8, 2017)

Water starts blurring at some fast shutter speeds. But you start to get nice looking blur around 1/10-1/4 of a second. These shutter speeds usually still have an energy to them. For true silky water, usually you are looking at shutter speeds of >1 second. For the silky lines, you actually need very linear lines in the water with good contrast. So with a crazy waterfall at spring runoff, for example, you'll get this crazy white blur. But, usually at lower flow, you can get some very nice lines.

I tend to like a few seconds up to 30 seconds. My favorite filter is a 6 stop ND filter, but I occasionally use a 10 stop ND filter. I have a mixture of breakthrough and B+W filters and would recommend either. I will say, I think breakthrough does have less color cast at 10 stops.


----------



## Rockskipper (May 8, 2017)

What effect dos the ND filter have, other than to darken the scene so you can open wider for longer? Not an ND filter user and just wanting to learn more. Thanks.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 8, 2017)

Rockskipper said:


> What effect dos the ND filter have, other than to darken the scene so you can open wider for longer? Not an ND filter user and just wanting to learn more. Thanks.


In theory, if it works perfectly, the only effect is to darken the scene. That is the intended and desired purpose. However, a side effect is that there is often an undesirable shift in color balance. If you are good at post processing you should be able to correct this in computer (especially from a RAW file). Breakthrough Photography claims their ten stop ND filter is truly neutral and the user above seems to confirm this.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 8, 2017)

Sunny conditions do not work well. Best to shoot at dawn or dusk, or an overcast day. The exception would be a deep forest where it is dark and shaded even mid day. This shot was early morning at Virgin Creek Falls (Alaska).

5 seconds, f/16, ISO 100. I probably used a Circular Polarizer but not a Neutral Density filter. Canon 5D3.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 8, 2017)

One more thought. Another negative side effect is that the area of moving water turns white with no detail. Best to minimize the area of the pool at bottom where the water is hitting. In the photo I posted, the foreground is distracting because there is too much white. In the photo KeithB posted the white is small and the still part of the pool takes up a larger space, leaving more detail. If this is not possible (as it was not in my case due to small size of pool), perhaps an alternative is to use a faster shutter speed or to do a series of shutter speeds and blend in computer.


----------



## Rockskipper (May 9, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> Rockskipper said:
> 
> 
> > What effect dos the ND filter have, other than to darken the scene so you can open wider for longer? Not an ND filter user and just wanting to learn more. Thanks.
> ...



Thanks for all the info. Jennifer Wu shoots a lot of night shots and talks about using ND filters, such as in this one to tone down the volcanic foreground:

http://www.jenniferwu.com/Nature/Night-Sky/i-CVXDBrx/A

Not to derail the waterfall topic, just found it of interest. Learning a lot here so thanks a bunch.


----------



## Maximilian (May 9, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> ...
> Do I need an ND filter with ISO400 (on a sunny day)? If yes, how strong would you recommend?


I would recommend using a tripod or other steady ground (stone, bean bag) and ND filter, 6 (sunny) or 3 (shadow) stops, depending on lighting situation.

When it comes to what kind of ND filter how to use I'd recommend the following pages as first reading:
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/en/photo-imaging/product-field/b-w-fotofilter/products/filtertypes/nd-filters/
(see also the link at the bottom for calculation)
and
https://breakthrough.photography/pages/nd-buying-guide

As for the shutter speed it really depends on your taste and the individual situation.
So much fun whilst trying out


----------



## docsmith (May 9, 2017)

Silky waterfalls are actually one of the easier things to shoot, IMO. All you need is a good tripod and, usually, an ND filter. Lower light around sunrise/sunset, shade, and cloudy days, etc tend to be better. But you can get good shoots any time of day. Think about Niagara Falls. A lot of pictures are it are taken during the day. As with anything, the key is interesting light, or fairly even light.

Which ND filter you need is dependent on how bright the scene is as the purpose is to get you into the 1/4 or longer shutterspeed. As I said above, I tend to like a few seconds up to ~30 seconds. In shaded areas during the day, I find 6 stop ND to be best. In brighter areas, I go to 10 stop. But, at sunset/sunrise, it depends on how much light you have. 

And, yes, the 10 Stop Breakthrough filters have much less color cast. I retired my two B+W 10 stop filters in favor of the Breakthrough filters. For 6 stop, I have seen no such need.

Bryan over at TDP has taken pictures of a color checker and you can see the differences between the filters pretty easily:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx


----------



## Dverb (May 9, 2017)

I agree that you need to spend time trying different settings to obtain the look you like. In addition to the common photo variables (composition, lighting, ISO, aperture, shutter speed) each individual waterfall will have its own unique challenges due to the amount of water flow in correlation to the width of rock area it is flowing over, height of drop, and amount of surface disturbance from smooth or rough surfaces under the water. 

If I understand the posters question it sounds like they like the very soft look (not 100% sure how to interpret "silky"). My style of waterfall pic is not the super soft look but still capturing a soft look. n my experience most of my waterfall pics have been 1/4 to 2 seconds long - but I have not used a ND filter...yet. 

I find sunny days to be very difficult to get good waterfall pics because most waterfalls have some foliage around them creating shadows and the dynamic range between the white water highlights that might be in the sun and the surrounding foliage shadows can be fairly extreme. It is not impossible but definitely requires some practice and sometimes patience to wait for that perfect cloud to pass overhead to shade the water. A few years ago I shot everything in JPG and would get frustrated by the wide dynamic range - once I shifted to RAW there is so much more that can be done to lift the shadows and correct the curve to create a natural look but without severe shadows.

Another challenge to waterfall pics is the result of the long exposure time - any slight breeze will cause foliage to blur. I have found that the early morning time is not only good for lighting but also the wind or breezes will tend to be less too - obviously this will also depend on geography.

When my bride and I travel we tend to plan this around the normal precipitation patterns for that area. We love trekking to waterfalls and try to time them at a time of year when there is a good flow of water to create a full look (vs a very narrow dribble) but not a super fast gully washer flow. It is not uncommon for us to do a hike and then return to the same hike a few days later based on precipitation changes to capture the look we want.

Have fun experimenting!


----------



## ahsanford (May 9, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> What is the fastest shutter speed I could use to create silky effect of waterfalls with an apeture between f/8 and f/11? Do I need an ND filter with ISO400 (on a sunny day)? If yes, how strong would you recommend?



As light and focal lengths vary, there isn't a single answer. But here are a few thoughts.

1) Silkiness is subjective and you can only get so much of it shooting handheld. See attached -- this was a very non-serious stop on the side of the road opportunity I knocked out very quickly. It was handheld at 1/6 of second on a 5D3 with a 16-35 f/4L IS (IS was on) around 20mm or so. Some folks have better hands/grip/patience and might have net themselves a non-shaky 1/2 second shot with this lens, but in broad strokes, this is close to the best you can do handheld. I don't say that to boast (because 1/6 is not that impressive) nearly so much as to make a point: _*get a tripod*_ and you can do whatever you like. Even a tiny gorillapod or ultra-small Slik tripod is game-changing for waterfall work.

2) Presuming you are now on a tripod, you now are balancing silkiness versus blowing out the bright bits in the frame from the long exposure. There are four major tools and one minor tool you basically use to get longer exposure without blowing out your highlights with waterfalls:


Darken the frame with an ND filter. On a tripod, how many stops you want is simply a function of how silky you want the water and if you care about any leaves that move/sway during the exposure. The advice of others on this thread of 5-10s or so is about right. You could, I suppose, get a big stopper and shoot for a period of minutes, but everything that sways in the breeze would be very blurry (who knows, you may dig that).



Shoot base ISO (pretty much always) -- lowest ISO needs the longest shutter to overexpose, right? ISO 400 should really only be used if that's the only film you have in your film camera at the time. 



Get a bright sky out of the frame or minimize its role in the composition. (You'll notice all the shots on this thread so far did this, and that's for a reason). These are often un-save-ably bright or require separate exposures for compositing in post later. In short, (most) skies are not your friend with these shots.



If you lack an ND filter (a CPL might also do in a pinch), stop the lens down to something rather extreme (f/22, f/25, etc.) -- but note that this will slightly hurt the sharpness of your image if you are a high-res pixel peeper.



Independently of a CPL's (slight/modest) darkening effect, it also critically can cut bright glare from the waterfall and surrounding water itself, which might save you some pain on the right hand side of the histogram. But only do this to taste, you may not like how that looks at max polarization. For a flavor of what the CPL does to the look, I'm guessing Keith's shot above used a CPL somewhat aggressively (I prefer that look personally) and MrFotoFool appears to have either not used one or turned down the CPL effect (for what might be a host a reasons, I'm not being critical -- both are fine shots).


Hope that helps.

- A


----------



## Frodo (May 9, 2017)

Good suggestions, to which I'd like to add one more.
For silky water, you need texture. A difference between Keith's photo and MrFotoFool's photo is the latter has limited texture due to overexposure. Provided there is enough headroom in the image, I bring down the "whites" slider and raise the "highlights" slider in Lightroom to give more exposure texture to the water. I do the same with snow.


----------



## SkynetTX (May 9, 2017)

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have the CPL on the camera everytime I shoot landscapes but will also try the ND filters. What do you think about the variable ones? Is it better to have a variable ND filter than more fixed that can be stocked?


----------



## docsmith (May 9, 2017)

Never used a variable ND filter. I know a few people that use them and like them. Ultimately, they are two linear polarized filters stacked on top of each other. So two more pieces of glass light has to go through. Likely not a big deal. But I've really enjoyed ND filters and sometimes adding a CPL.

Also, MrFotoFools image popped up for me this time....

Great waterfall...Virgin Creek Falls, Girdwood, AK. 
5DIII, 15-35 F/4 IS at 16 mm, 1.6 sec, f/8, ISO 200


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 9, 2017)

@docsmith - I should have done a faster shutter speed like you to get more detail on Virgin Creek Falls.


----------



## docsmith (May 10, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> @docsmith - I should have done a faster shutter speed like you to get more detail on Virgin Creek Falls.



Thanks Fred....I thought it was funny how we had to have been in almost the exact location. I took a few with longer shutterspeeds. That just happens to be my favorite. I do like how the water has texture and I think that illustrates some of the points made here about the benefit of different shutter speeds.

As for waterfalls in daylight....I actually think the key is even light.....
3 sec, f/16, 55 mm, ISO 200


----------

