Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 4, 2006, 10:34 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Ollie@Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 554
Default

Lovely shot , as always John.

Do you have any advice to taking these kinds of shots in fairly bright light? I have often wanted to take these long-exposure shots of moving water, but I am foiled because the light is too bright and I can't get a small enough apeture to match the long shutter speed. I feel like I need sunglasses for my camera!

Ollie :-)
Ollie@Oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2006, 11:28 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

The simplicity is stunning. Regards. Jaki
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2006, 4:48 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
John Maddock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,663
Default

Thanks for all the comments!

Ollie: taking these in bright light is hard: I use a polariser and a 4x neutral density filter and that's still insufficient to bring the exposure down long enough in bright light. In fact this shot was actually taken in the rain (what else but water would you take in the rain?), so the exposure was quite long even without the filters. With them I can get 4 to 6 second exposures provided you're somewhere fairly gloomy to begin with :-) One idea I've had, but not tried in the field yet is to use a pair of polarising filters: if these are set at 90 degrees to each other they let no light through, and at 0 degrees they let it all through. So somewhere in between you should be able to get any exposure you want no matter what the daylight is like.

However...... in bright sunlight the reflections off the water's surface can be orders of magnitude brighter than the surrounding countryside, especially off white water. Most cameras just can't cope with that kind of contrast unfortunately.

Hope this helps, John.
John Maddock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2006, 9:54 AM   #14
PvB
Senior Member
 
PvB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 208
Default

This shouldn't be here, but on your living room wall or in a nature magazine:G

Very nice
PvB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2006, 3:07 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
LadyhawkVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,374
Default

Lovely shot. The rock colors and flowing water are gorgeous.
LadyhawkVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2006, 12:17 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Ollie@Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 554
Default

Thanks for the technical tips John. Sounds like I'm in the market for a neutral density filter. The crossed polarizer theory might just work too (providing you don't get any coloured interference patterns that you get when you put materials between 2 polarising lenses).

Cheers,
Ollie
Ollie@Oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2006, 3:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Lovely photo John, and cheers for the interesting technical tips!

I reckon we should also put pressure on DSLR makers to provide cameras starting with ISO 10 (yes TEN!) coz that would allow us super long exposures for bright situations! Very handy in water shots like these.... What do you think?

But of course at the long / high end, they should still be "fairly noiseless" going up to at least ISO 6400! How about it? :-)

Maybe still technology of hte FUTURE!!??:?

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2006, 12:25 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
John Maddock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,663
Default

Thanks for the comments again.

Paul: Yes please to ISO 10 :-)

Actually given that most film photographers are quite happy with ISO 50 (there was almost a revolt when Velvia changed from 50 to 100 ISO), I'm amazed that digital cameras don't go lower.

I suspect however that there is a good technical reason behind it: any given sensor will have a "native" ISO rating, trying to go lower will just saturate the electronics. Given that there will be a limit to how far above the "native" rating you can go (due to noise) I don't see sensors like this any time soon. Indeed the industry seems to be pushing towards higher and higher speeds, and I must admit they would come in handy some of the time!

John.
John Maddock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 4:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

John,

As far as my knowledge of the technical stuff behind ISO goes, what you wrote is what I have known (in sketchy detail) so far. So yes, hopefully one day we'll have that ISO 10....

:-)

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.