[Recovered Thread: 68892]

[Vlad the Impaler]

Hey guys, just an idea...I'll test it later but I won't have time to make it down to the closest waterfall today.

Perhaps take two exposures, one really long (to get smooth water and the starburst effect in the pond) and one relatively short (to capture detail of the falling water... perhaps 1/30th would be about right) and combine them in photoshop. Then adjusting the transparency of the top one changes how much detailappears in the water.

As long as the camera stays put on a stable tripod, and other objects like leaves don't move between the exposures, it should work out pretty well...

[JohnReid]

It's a good idea, I look forward to seeing the results.

[John Maddock]

Vlad the Impaler wrote:

Hey guys, just an idea...I'll test it later but I won't have time to make it down to the closest waterfall today.

Perhaps take two exposures, one really long (to get smooth water and the starburst effect in the pond) and one relatively short (to capture detail of the falling water... perhaps 1/30th would be about right) and combine them in photoshop. Then adjusting the transparency of the top one changes how much detailappears in the water.

As long as the camera stays put on a stable tripod, and other objects like leaves don't move between the exposures, it should work out pretty well...

It's a good idea, in fact the folks over at Digital Outback have been there already see: http://www.outbackphoto.com/DigitalC...001/essay.html

I'm not sure I'm 100% satisfied with their sample pictures, but it's certainly worth trying and I look forward to seeing your results!

John.

[The Barbarian]

Took this one some time ago, with a Voigtlander Perkeo (120 rollfilm). I was kinda pleased with the way the water turned out. I had never shot a waterfall that big before, and the results from differences in scalewere interesting.