A comment on this image I recently uploaded to the gallery had me thinking and I would like the opinions of those who are in to this sort of thing.... Background on the image: Over-cast day, tripod mounted, shot on Velvia, I would have used an aperture of f/16, and I believe the shutter speed was 2-3 seconds. **The comment made was**:*Yeah, typicaly Velvia, try next time a later time of the day so the sky is more blue, great shot. I like velvia and the Nikon n90* **My reply was**:*Well it was an over-cast day, so not a chance of getting "blue skies". I always shoot waterfalls on overcast days. Why? So I can use a long shutter speed there by attaining the smoothness of the water that I like, and assuring that highlights are not blown out nor detail lost in dark shadows...maybe a neutral density filter? While a blue sky certainly would have been a lovely addition, it wouldn't have yielded the results I was trying to attain with the water...do you see what I mean?* I received an IM suggesting I try ISO 25 film....which leads me to my question or rather my idea/feeling....ISO 25 is only a one stop difference from ISO 50.....I still don't feel that shooting with ISO 25 on a "blue skies" sunny day would yield satisfactory results.... Any opinions on this? I'd really like to know if my thinking is way off base.......

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

I didn't understand the comment, "Yeah, typicaly Velvia, try next time a later time of the day so the sky is more blue." Maybe Velvia somehow handles an ACTUAL blue sky with difficulty? Maybe a UV sensitivity? Perhaps if there is a blue sky, the colors intensify near sunset? Maybe the commenter could explain. But on one of these completely overcast days, the clouds aren't magically going away. And if it was a bright, sunny, blue sky, you wouldn't be getting that wonderful softness in the trees. [Personally, I'd rather photograph anything on a cloudy day, than fight with harsh shadows.] I believe you are correct, if the scene is bright the only ways I know to use a long shutter speed are; a) Stop the lens way down, (view cameras used to have f64); b) Use a slower film (and you've already pointed out it can't get much slower); c) Some sort of neutral density filter, (they come in various flavors, 1Stop, 2Stops, 3Stops).

If you use a polariser on a bright day, you will lose about 1 1/2 to 2 stops of light. So using Velvia at F16-F22 and a polariser should give you exposures of over 1 sec good enough for the smoothness of water your looking for. Plus practise at diffent times of day at the same place and then conpair results. Great photo BTW

Eggiwegs! I would like... to smash them!

They also have "Variable" ND filters. These are pretty expensive, and I've always been cautious of them. I think they are basically two polarizing filters, that you can cross at different angles. Mess up certain auto-focus? Mess up your nice reflections? ND filters are cheap, and there really is no need to buy several different values. Pick something like a 2Stop, or 3Stop... [On your digi, how far can you turn the "ISO" down? 25?]

Does anyone still make an iso 25 anymore other than black and white?

Hmmmmm thinking this is making for a great day out experimenting and one hell of an excuse to get out of the house with the camera. ;)

I really like the photograph, and given the conditions, and what you were shooting with, I don't know what more could have been expected. Overcast days (my preference too) usually don't yield bright blue skies, if I may be so bold as to state the obvious. All I noticed (again, if I may be so bold) is that the rich contrast of the waterfall was not matched by the trees and sky. That may not matter to some, but for some reason, it caught my eye from the start. That's why God gave us Photoshop. I enhanced the upper portion, especially where the trees meet the sky (thanks to the "multiply" layer option). Not a BIG difference, but just enough for me. That's all. Like I said, nice shot Michelle.

OK - I've had a few - so I may be stepping on a few toes here - but, what the heck. First of all, I have to say that this comment about your photograph was (I believe) well intended and designed to be "helpful". This flavor of response (in my opinion) should not be discouraged - albeit a tad unjustified. That being said: Point 1: (not that it matters), but the comment about the "Nikon N90" is completely irrelevant - great photography is not a matter of equipment, but a matter of being able to USE the equipment to achieve a desired result. Point 2: A time later in the day (on an overcast day) is, more than likely, to be...ummm...overcast. i don't understand how this is supposed to give a "more blue" sky...? Point 3: A slower film speed (and I don't care if it's 30 stops slower) - if correctly exposed, will not give any more definition to the sky - it may blur the water more (after slowing the shutter speed down some 30 stops worth) - but it will not pull any blueness into the sky (unless it's a roll of 1972 Ektachrome :) ) Point 4: IF you shot this image on a clear day (with a blue sky), the contrast range of the scene would have exceeded the range of the film (either the shadows would have blocked up or the highlights would have washed out) Point 5: ND filters would have only stretched your shutter speed out (or forced you to stop down more) - they would not have altered the scene (with the exception of blurring the water a bit more - which I don't think it needs - or give you more depth-of-field, whicj I don't think it needs) A polarizer - yes, it would knock out about two stops (see above reasons for NOT doing this) - in addition, it would probably reduce the reflection from the water (which, it definitely DOES NOT need) Point 6: I don't think this image needs Photoshop - although a bit more density in the tree color woiuld be nice - but I think that could be achieved through exposure (and this depends entirely on how YOU intended to expose the image, and the detail and the density that the SCAN captures, as well as the way the image looks on MY SCREEN) - but, based on that, I think a touch less exposure would saturate the colors a bit more without blocking up the falls too much (looks like the highlights of the water spray wouldn't be affected and I don't think the rocks would block up either - on the other hand, the area of the wall behind the falls may block out a bit...? - maybe a split ND filter? - but I'm reaching) Personal Opinion: (I know, nobody asked for one....or did they?) I LOVE to shoot in overcast conditions - but I make an effort not to include the sky (because it will wind up looking like a dirty white). realizing that this is strictly personal preference, I took the liberty of cropping the image above. Main Point: I love the shot - but the main question is "does this photograph convey the message you wanted it to convey?" - If so, then it's perfect (regardless of what any of us say) - if not, then you've got a neat location to return to! (Like I said - I've had a few - so ignore me :) )

Hmmm...I'm not a landscape person, but I recently read a few articles on landscapes and reflections. Have you tried shooting early in the morning or late afternoon? That way, you get the blue skies but the sun isn't high enough to be overpowering. And because it's low you can actually shoot in the direction of the sun without blowing out your scene. For the water reflections, you'd also want to pick a time when the wind was as still as possible. A polarizer would be good to drop you down 1-1.5 stops as well as giving you more saturation in the blue sky. You might also think of using a split neutral density filter if shooing then (so that the sky doesn't overexpose). You can get a nice Cokin filter holder for under $20 and most of the Cokin filters range from $15-30 each (cheaper when you're not paying for the metal rings and stuff like the Hoyas, B+Ws, Tiffens, etc). -=>Donald

Huh? [Where's Dobby when we really need him?]

Thank you all....Wolfsnap's thoughts point for point are exactly where I was trying to go with this...Dear Wolfsnap you are so thorough in your replies! I have read in many, many books that shooting waterfalls should not be done on sunny days, regardless of the time of day, and for the reasons Wolfsnap stated above. Which is why I started wondering if I was stupid and there was something that I missed somewhere along the line... I'm not bashing anyone's comments, quite frankly I looked at this as a learning opportunity for myself and for everyone here which is why I posted the image and comments on the forum. @ Donald....I have literally a pile of Cokin filters...Circular Polarizer and ND filters included in that. The problem with polarizers on an image such as this is that it would remove the beautiful colored reflections from the water...not an option if that is what you are trying to show. BTW I like the color enhancing Marshall and the crop is very effective, why didn't I think of that? LOL! @Misha...my digital goes from ISO 100 to 800. :~(

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

maybe the guy hadn't a clue wtf he was talking about. You should've said it was shot on Ilford 3200 black and white film, and he would've said, "Yeah, typical colour for black and white film I'd say"....

I'm not real smart when it comes to the technical aspects of cameras and filters and film types and speeds, but I know a nice picture when I see one, and this to me is a nice pic!

Michelle - With a circular polarizer, you should be able to adjust it so that it does not remove the reflections. My experience with CPs is that they only work for significant reflection removal from water/windows when used in a very specific way (specific range of angles to surface with filter rotated to a second specific angle to match the polarized light coming off surface). I've read articles by landscape photographers who are both for and against the use of the CP for landscapes. I know Moose Peterson uses them alot (his famous CP + 81A warming filter combination), but I don't know about his water shots. The ones who use it say that if used correctly it can remove the blue tint/haze on the land/water (as well as darkening your skies and acting like a ND filter) without removing water reflections. From my experience, I'd agree with that, but it's something you'd have to set up correctly for it to work properly. Then again, most things with photography are like that. :) However, since you already have ND filters and a Cokin setup, I'd experiment with those and forget about fiddling with the CP to get it set up right. A partly cloudy day, early morning/late afternoon and a ND filter should allow you to hold down the contrast in a shot like this so you get good shadow detail without blowing your highlights out. -=>Donald

Well, I'll have to give it a try sometime Don... :~) if I can get myself to wake up in time for a sunrise or not be too busy to grab a sunset sky.... I'll be honest and say I still seriously have my doubts about it working "well", not that it won't work at all, just not "well".....and for reasons that have already been stated but I'm willing to experiment with it. With all the photo magazines I can't believe I've never read an article on this before. Unless my memory is shutting down on me... Do you have any specific articles on this subject?

I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com

I know exactly what you mean. I have been trying to get up early on my days off for the last month so I can photograph the seals that hang around the Edmonds fishing pier here. See any seal pics for me yet? hehehe. There has to be a technique for this. There are way too many great shots like the one you are taking with beautiful blue skies, fluffy white clouds and fantastic reflections. Doh! Reflections...I completely forgot about it. I religiously read the British magazing Photography Monthly. The Dec 2002 issue has an article on taking pictures with reflections. It wasn't so much a technical article, but sets up some good tips. The magazine is about $7 here in the US, but well worth it. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll see if I can type it up (it's only 1 page long). -=>Donald

Thanks, Wolfsnap for the thorough reply. I was thinking the same thing practically but I couldn't put words to them (much less become technical about it)-- points 1-3 specifically. :-) (Gosh, am I so articulate or what??? LMAO) (*

Point 5: ND filters would have only stretched your shutter speed out (or forced you to stop down more) - they would not have altered the scene (with the exception of blurring the water a bit more - which I don't think it needs - or give you more depth-of-field, whicj I don't think it needs) Absolutely correct. Only thing an ND filter would do would allow the longer shutter speed on a bright sunny day. This would allow the water motion blur. But would not fix: >Point 4: IF you shot this image on a clear day (with a blue sky), the contrast range of the scene would have exceeded the range of the film (either the shadows would have blocked up or the highlights would have washed out). An ND filter would just shift everything down, not change the dynamic range. Could THIS have been the point of the original commenter? Perhaps (s)he thought the sky was blue, but washed out? [There are tricks to play by making two exposures, and combining in photoshop...] Keep shooting on these nice evenly-lighted days, 'Chelle.

Point 5: ND filters would have only stretched your shutter speed out (or forced you to stop down more) - they would not have altered the scene (with the exception of blurring the water a bit more - which I don't think it needs - or give you more depth-of-field, which I don't think it needs) I didn't state that correctly - an ND filter would stretch your shutter speed out - or force you to OPEN UP the aperture - which is going to give you LESS depth-of-field (I said stop down giving more DOF- which is wrong) Sorry for the mix-up (but I was having quite a few that night :) ) The point is that the ONLY thing ND filters do is allow you to vary your shutter speed / aperture combination (either letting you shoot with a slower shutter speed at any given aperture, or shooting at a larger aperture for less depth of field at any given shutter speed. ND filters DO NOT saturate or darken any portion of the image (unless you don't make the exposure adjustment when using them - but then what you have is an underexposed image.) As to what Misha stated about "Perhaps (s)he thought the sky was blue, but washed out?" - could be (but I doubt it).