Which filter for smooth water?

J

johnjess

Messages
99
Edit My Images
No
Hi I am wanting to photograph a small waterfall at a local beauty spot and would like a few where the water is smooth. I understand this needs a slow shutter speed but when I have tried this previously the image has been blown out , so my question is which type of filter do I require , polarising or nd ? If ND which grade would you recommend ?
Also does it matter which lens I use ? I have an 18-70, 70-300 and 50mm . is there one which would be better than the others ? Thanks in advance
 
Unless you can make a mask to cover the area you want smooth, it is inevitable that you will either end up with either a blown out area or an underexposed one.

Another way to get the result you want is to take two images, one correctly exposed for the smooth water, and the other for the surrounding area, then combine them in photoshop using layers/masks.
 
I think EdBray is talking about taking it without filters.

Sounds like you need a ND #6 I would use it on the 18-70 me sen.
 
Decca said:
I think EdBray is talking about taking it without filters.

Sounds like you need a ND #6 I would use it on the 18-70 me sen.
Click to expand...

No, EdBray is telling the OP how it can be done! No filter can change this and it does not matter what lens he uses, he should use the lens that gives him the composition he wants.

Using a filter or not will not stop the blurred area being overexposed or the remainder or the image being underexposed. There is no way to get this correct in camera without using specially made masks.

Now to make this easy to understand, a little fable!

Once upon a time, a photographer is out on a jaunt through the woods when he happens on a nice woodland scene with a stream flowing through it which has a number of small waterfalls, the straight image through the viewfinder tells the photographer that the scene requires an exposure equal to 1/125 sec at f8 with ISO 800, but after taking the image and viewing on the screen the photographer realises that this has given a frozen look to the water and the photographer doesn't want that, he would like to show it as flowing and blurred. The remainder of the image is correctly exposed though and has the depth of field that the photographer wants.

What can he do?

Provided he has his tripod with him he can reduce the ISO to 100 (3 stops) which will allow him to reduce the shutter speed by the same 3 stops to 1/15th sec, this will allow him to get the blurred water effect with the same depth of field that he previously had, but wait! What has happened, the image doesn't look at all correct, the slower shutter speed whilst allowing the water to blur has also allowed the water's light gathering properties of each drop to become combined and has now made the area in which they combine the most to be completely over exposed and out of sync (exposure wise) with the rest of the image.

Oh, dear! What can the photographer do? He decides that he can afford to have a bit more depth of field and closes the aperture down by 1 stop to f11, this then reduces the overall exposure by 1 stop which now allows the combined water area to not be so overexposed and now gives a little detail in the water. That's fantastic thinks the photographer, but on examining the rest of the image he now finds that the woodland area surrounding the stream is too dark and losing detail in then shadows. Oh, bugger he thinks, how can I compensate for this, shall I use an ND filter? No, that will not help. What about a graduated ND filter, again that will not help either, unless the stream is wholly at one edge of the frame.

I know he thinks! I will take 2 exposures, one for the stream giving me all the detail I require in the highlights, and one for the surrounding area, again giving me all the detail I require in the shadows. I can then combine them together in PP.

And the happy photographer goes off home with both images required.

And the moral of this story is? Know what you are talking about before posting.
 
EdBray said:
No, EdBray is telling the OP how it can be done! No filter can change this and it does not matter what lens he uses, he should use the lens that gives him the composition he wants.

Using a filter or not will not stop the blurred area being overexposed or the remainder or the image being underexposed. There is no way to get this correct in camera without using specially made masks.

Now to make this easy to understand, a little fable!

Once upon a time, a photographer is out on a jaunt through the woods when he happens on a nice woodland scene with a stream flowing through it which has a number of small waterfalls, the straight image through the viewfinder tells the photographer that the scene requires an exposure equal to 1/125 sec at f8 with ISO 800, but after taking the image and viewing on the screen the photographer realises that this has given a frozen look to the water and the photographer doesn't want that, he would like to show it as flowing and blurred. The remainder of the image is correctly exposed though and has the depth of field that the photographer wants.

What can he do?

Provided he has his tripod with him he can reduce the ISO to 100 (3 stops) which will allow him to reduce the shutter speed by the same 3 stops to 1/15th sec, this will allow him to get the blurred water effect with the same depth of field that he previously had, but wait! What has happened, the image doesn't look at all correct, the slower shutter speed whilst allowing the water to blur has also allowed the water's light gathering properties of each drop to become combined and has now made the area in which they combine the most to be completely over exposed and out of sync (exposure wise) with the rest of the image.

Oh, dear! What can the photographer do? He decides that he can afford to have a bit more depth of field and closes the aperture down by 1 stop to f11, this then reduces the overall exposure by 1 stop which now allows the combined water area to not be so overexposed and now gives a little detail in the water. That's fantastic thinks the photographer, but on examining the rest of the image he now finds that the woodland area surrounding the stream is too dark and losing detail in then shadows. Oh, bugger he thinks, how can I compensate for this, shall I use an ND filter? No, that will not help. What about a graduated ND filter, again that will not help either, unless the stream is wholly at one edge of the frame.

I know he thinks! I will take 2 exposures, one for the stream giving me all the detail I require in the highlights, and one for the surrounding area, again giving me all the detail I require in the shadows. I can then combine them together in PP.

And the happy photographer goes off home with both images required.

And the moral of this story is? Know what you are talking about before posting.
Click to expand...

The most eloquent rant I've read in tp. :)
 
Helen, the OP was aware of how to get the water smooth, he was specifically asking how he could prevent it being blown (overexposed).

You misread the question and then tried to wrongly second guess was I was saying in my post, you then gave some incorrect advise as to how it could be done.

And I stand by my comment, too many people give incorrect advice after either misreading the question asked or by just not knowing what they are doing themselves, or think they do.
 
Last edited:
Decca said:
I read the question as in he was after something like this:

there was really no reason to be a dick about it and insult me.
Click to expand...

That was how I read the OP's post too.

Ed, you posted a very informative reply and then spoilt it with a totally unnecessary comment at the end. Was there any need for that sentence, really?

Andy
 
EdBray said:
Helen, the OP was aware of how to get the water smooth, he was specifically asking how he could prevent it being blown (overexposed).

You misread the question and then tried to wrongly second guess was I was saying in my post, you then gave some incorrect advise as to how it could be done.

And I stand by my comment, too many people give incorrect advice after either misreading the question asked or by just not knowing what they are doing themselves, or think they do.
Click to expand...


As I read the first post, is all he is asking is what filters to use.
So it comes across that you are mistaken and appear to have a chip on your shoulder.
 
Last edited:
Keebsuk said:
That was how I read the OP's post too.

Ed, you posted a very informative reply and then spoilt it with a totally unnecessary comment at the end. Was there any need for that sentence, really?

Andy
Click to expand...

Probably not, but then I suppose it would depend on how often your advice is contradicted or second guessed by other people who think they know more than they actually do.

As for the two photos shown, a good example of why not or how to use an ND filter.
 
harrisp said:
As I read the first post, is all he is asking is what filters to use.
So it comes across that you are mistaken and appear to have a chip on your shoulder.
Click to expand...

He is asking how to prevent it being blown out!

There are no filters that will prevent it being blown out, so I never suggested one as to have suggested one would have been to mislead him further.

Suggesting an ND filternwill only cause it to be more blown out.

No I do not have a chip on my shoulder, it is more like a log!
 
EdBray said:
He is asking how to prevent it being blown out!

There are no filters that will prevent it being blown out, so I never suggested one as to have suggested one would have been to mislead him further.

Suggesting an ND filternwill only cause it to be more blown out.

No I do not have a chip on my shoulder, it is more like a log!
Click to expand...

As I read his post he isn't currently using any filters so yes ND filters will prevent it being blown out if he is attempting longer exposures to get smooth water without them.
 
harrisp said:
As I read his post he isn't currently using any filters so yes ND filters will prevent it being blown out if he is attempting longer exposures to get smooth water without them.
Click to expand...

No he isn't and the water is already being blown out, the use of an ND will only make that worse, have a look at Helen's examples if you don't believe me.

Exposure is the only thing that will prevent it being blown out. If he uses an ND filter to reduce the exposure to prevent it being blown out, all he will do is under expose the surrounding area. He can do that with or without an ND filter, just by adjusting his exposure.

If however he wants the water to be smooth without blowing out and with keeping detail in the surrounding area, he will have to use more than one exposure and combine them.
 
The OP clearly meant the WHOLE image was blown out when they tried a long exposure of the water. Its quite clear they asked which FILTER would be best for the job of allowing a long exposure to get the silky water effect.

Yes we can all babble on about the technicallities of how to get a perfectly exposed scene throughout with the taking of several images and merging them without the use of filters, but this it not what the question was, the question was
what FILTER should I use to not blow out the WHOLE image.

The answer.. an ND filter.

There, can we stop arguing now please.
 
EdBray said:
No he isn't and the water is already being blown out, the use of an ND will only make that worse, have a look at Helen's examples if you don't believe me.

Exposure is the only thing that will prevent it being blown out. If he uses an ND filter to reduce the exposure to prevent it being blown out, all he will do is under expose the surrounding area. He can do that with or without an ND filter, just by adjusting his exposure.

If however he wants the water to be smooth without blowing out and with keeping detail in the surrounding area, he will have to use more than one exposure and combine them.
Click to expand...

He even asks what grade ND filter to use, are you reading a different post to me or something:bang: You can get smooth water without overexposing other parts by using an ND filter.

Edit,
TCR4x4 is on the same line of thought as me.
 
harrisp said:
He even asks what grade ND filter to use, are you reading a different post to me or something:bang: You can get smooth water without overexposing other parts by using an ND filter.

Edit,
TCR4x4 is on the same line of thought as me.
Click to expand...

Judging by another of his posts in this forum today, he must be having a bad day.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The OP clearly meant the WHOLE image was blown out when they tried a long exposure of the water. Its quite clear they asked which FILTER would be best for the job of allowing a long exposure to get the silky water effect.

Yes we can all babble on about the technicallities of how to get a perfectly exposed scene throughout with the taking of several images and merging them without the use of filters, but this it not what the question was, the question was
what FILTER should I use to not blow out the WHOLE image.

The answer.. an ND filter.

There, can we stop arguing now please.
Click to expand...

This is how I read it too.

An ND filter set is definitely the way to go. (y)

Here's a couple I prepared earlier, both are single exposures using an ND4 and CPL (a single ND8 would have been better for the situation but I didn't have one so had to improvise).



 
Last edited:
5918454343_d81b1fcc22_z.jpg


One of mine, from one exposure with a ND2 and a ND4 filter.
 
You can argue all day about what the OP intended to ask and how best to interpret his post - but I can only see it going around in circles until John comes back in and clarifies.

Until then try to keep it constructive and keep from tearing chunks out of one another over it.
 
Title of thread: "Which filter for smooth water?"

Answer: Neutral Density filter.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys sorry for the delay , just in from work. The look I am hoping to achieve is in posts 21 & 22 by harrisp and ZoneV. I didn't know the look could be achieved by combining images, that may be something for me to practice in the future. Everything I have read on the subject said it was done using filters , some saying they had used polarising filters and some saying ND's. If ND's are the way to go which one would you recommend or do I need more than one ?
Thanks for all the replies.
 
It helps to have a selection of varying "strength" ND filters as the one you'll need will depend on any given situation, i.e. the amount of available light and how much you want to slow the shutter speed to achieve the desired effect.

If you already have one, a circular polariser will block nearly 2 stops of light (which will almost quadruple your shutter speed, because with each stop your shutter speed doubles). Failing that, you could buy a couple of ND filters, perhaps a 2 and a 3 stop, which would give you a degree of flexibility.

Have a look into the HiTech 85 ND filters (not graduated) and Cokin P holder. This system allows you to use the same filter set for all your lenses (up to 80mm filter size I think).

Other people may be along to recommend other brands or screw-in ND filters, I'm afraid I don't have much experience with them.
 
Last edited:
*awaits apology from Ed Bray for insulting several forum members*

The the OP.
you will need ND filters, they come in varying strengths, as you are aware, and so as as such its impossible to say which strength you need, as each scene is different.
I would reccomened getting an ND 2 and ND 4 to start. You can then stack them if needed.

You can use a polariser, but this only stops out about 1.5 stops of light, so it will need to be getting towards dusk to get the shutter speed you need (typically over a second for milky water). The advantage of the polariser is it also cuts the glare off any foliage and also makes the water see-through.
With some filter systems you can stack both a polariser and an ND for the best of both.

I'd reccomened looking for a Slot in system like Kood, Hitech or Lee. Cokin if you must, but thier filters are well known for producing a horrible brown cast. easy enough to fix if you shoot RAW though, or set a custom WB before the shoot.

edit...Beaten by ZoneV, I should type quicker!
 
Last edited:
Our posts are remarkably similar. Were you looking over my shoulder? :rules:

:LOL:
 
TCR4x4 said:
*awaits apology from Ed Bray for insulting several forum members*
Click to expand...

If you mean two for 'several' then I have no problem apologising to Helen and harrisp, as for anyone else, I had no discourse with anyone else so if anyone else feels insulted then they perhaps they should book some therapy.

Now for the rub, in everyone of the images posted in this thread the water is blown out. Even in ZoneV's images where he has subdued the brightness of the blown areas by introducing some tone this has been done in PP and there is still no detail there.
 
Well apologize to them then...
Telling someone they are talking rubbish when fact they answered the original question correctly is out of order.
 
This is probably aimed more at EdBray than anyone else (I just want to be sure I understand what he is saying):

Are you saying there will be an exposure for the water which lies between a 'normal' exposure (no filters used, entire scene a reasonable exposure, but water static and frozen), and the examples posted (where the water is nice and blurry but you are saying is blown out because there is no detail left in the water), which will be blurred but still contain detail but the rest of the scene would be under exposed?

Hope I've got this right.
 
EdBray said:
If you mean two for 'several' then I have no problem apologising to Helen and harrisp, as for anyone else, I had no discourse with anyone else so if anyone else feels insulted then they perhaps they should book some therapy.

Now for the rub, in everyone of the images posted in this thread the water is blown out. Even in ZoneV's images where he has subdued the brightness of the blown areas by introducing some tone this has been done in PP and there is still no detail there.
Click to expand...

Horlicks.
 
Decca said:
Ansel Adams called, he thinks you're just too precious

The colour white does not = blown out and as a wise man once said "water does not have magical light gathering properties"


idiot
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in examples of Ansel Adams work in which he used an ND filter.

As you have already castigated me across the Internet and used a photograph from flickr that was posted to show an example of poor fill-in flash as an example of my 'mediocre and generic photographs' perhaps others should be warned of the phrase 'hell has no fury such as a woman scorned'.

Oh and as for 'mediocre and generic photographs' one could use the phrase 'pot calling the kettle black'
 
Last edited:
your not the only one to be insulted by mr bray,i dont ask questions any more,in case i get ridiculed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top