Niagara Falls

[joebranko]

Taken mid morning with good sunlight. Exposure 1/5" (using an ND4 filter). to soften appearance of the water.
f 29, 109mm, 1/5" ISO100

[Shadowman]

Sometimes debated whether to stop the action or soften the look of flowing water, I think the final decision is that of the photographer. Such a small aperture you chose for your intended effect, it worked at softening but leaves little else sharp except the foreground twigs. A bit of a distraction when compared to the soft waters.

[joebranko]

I suppose I could have tried an even darker filter and opened the aperture. The aim was to soften the water; wasn't anything I could have done about the twigs. I took several shots at shorter we exposures but preferred this effect. Thanks for the comments John!

[NorthernFocus]

I like the composition and nice shutter speed to give the soft effect to the water. I agree with the prior comment regarding lack of sharpness. Based on the rocks in upper part of the frame it looks like a bit of camera shake. Also there is no white anywhere in the frame which seems there should be with all that frothy water.

[Shadowman]

I suppose I could have tried an even darker filter and opened the aperture. The aim was to soften the water; wasn't anything I could have done about the twigs. I took several shots at shorter we exposures but preferred this effect. Thanks for the comments John!

Joe,

Usually shutter speed alone can soften the effects of the water, were you using the ND filter to control the highlights?

[joebranko]

Joe,

Usually shutter speed alone can soften the effects of the water, were you using the ND filter to control the highlights?

Thanks. No, the use of the filter was to allow me to use a longer exposure . Without the filter on such a bright day I could not get the exposure anywhere near to 1/5 sec. I could not even get it longer than 1/30 ". I don't recall the longest exposure I was able to get before installing the filter.

[joebranko]

I like the composition and nice shutter speed to give the soft effect to the water. I agree with the prior comment regarding lack of sharpness. Based on the rocks in upper part of the frame it looks like a bit of camera shake. Also there is no white anywhere in the frame which seems there should be with all that frothy water.

Thanks. Yes there is probably some camera shake, as it was hand held.

[IzzieK]

Joe, one question: Why is your water greenish?

[joebranko]

Joe, one question: Why is your water greenish?

The colour is from dissolved salts/minerals in the water.

[Manfred M]

Interesting shot, Joe. I've got to get to the falls in the winter some time again. When I was young we used to get down that way at least a couple of times a year as we had relatives that lived in Niagara Falls, NY.

You're a brave man; I wouldn't attempt to hand-hold at 109mm focal length at 1/5th sec on a crop frame camera.

I was just comparing your shot of the falls to some I did of the falls back at the end of May when I was down in Southern Ontario. I always find it interesting how we all come up with different views / interpretations of the same place. I guess this is a good thing, otherwise our work would be boring indeed.

I cheated when it comes to that silky look; I did a night shot of the illuminated American Falls, so my exposure was around 4 seconds; no ND filter required. I took the opposite approach on the Horseshoe Falls and went for a sharper, higher speed approach.

Niagara Falls - two unusual views

[IzzieK]

The colour is from dissolved salts/minerals in the water.

I do not like soft water treatment but this one is absolutely gorgeous in many ways -- I wish you had captured more of the irridiscent colour of it.

[joebranko]

Interesting shot, Joe. I've got to get to the falls in the winter some time again. When I was young we used to get down that way at least a couple of times a year as we had relatives that lived in Niagara Falls, NY.

You're a brave man; I wouldn't attempt to hand-hold at 109mm focal length at 1/5th sec on a crop frame camera.

I was just comparing your shot of the falls to some I did of the falls back at the end of May when I was down in Southern Ontario. I always find it interesting how we all come up with different views / interpretations of the same place. I guess this is a good thing, otherwise our work would be boring indeed.

I cheated when it comes to that silky look; I did a night shot of the illuminated American Falls, so my exposure was around 4 seconds; no ND filter required. I took the opposite approach on the Horseshoe Falls and went for a sharper, higher speed approach.

Niagara Falls - two unusual views

Thanks Manfred. I liked your shots of Niagara. The night shot was very impressive! Love it! Thanks for sharing them.
Would it be easier holding the camera still if it were full frame? As you probably know alongside the falls on the Canadian side there is a massive concrete guard rail. I rested my arms on the concrete pillars while shooting this shot which must have helped steady the camera.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred. I liked your shots of Niagara. The night shot was very impressive! Love it! Thanks for sharing them.
Would it be easier holding the camera still if it were full frame? As you probably know alongside the falls on the Canadian side there is a massive concrete guard rail. I rested my arms on the concrete pillars while shooting this shot which must have helped steady the camera.

Bracing against a rail or pillar is a great start. If I can, I like pressing the base of the camera against the railing or telephone pole or tree, that way one direction of movement is relatively constrained and holding the camera still gets a whole lot easier. Elbows against the chest holding the camera while bracing against a solid object works well too.

The issue with crop versus FF camera is a tad more complex. If I were shooting a FF camera with a 75mm lens and you were shooting a 1.5x crop factor camera with a 50mm lens, we would get the same FoV. However, your crop factor camera would likely be a fair bit lighter than my FF, so Newton's 1st law of motion comes into play; a heavier camera will be easier to hold steady because it has more mass (weighs more than the crop factor camera). That's really the main difference; I find that I can hand hold my FF at least 1 eV better than my crop frame.

The real gamechanger for handholding is the FoV of a lens. Now the math here isn't quite accurate, but you can sort of see the gist. If my long telephoto lens, with a FoV of 5 degrees gets deflected 1 degree (which isn't very much) 1/5 = 20% so there is a lot of relative motion that will end up as motion blur as slower shutter speeds. If I take a wide angle lens with a FoV of 100 degrees. If my camera shake introduces the same 1 degree movement of the camera body, it will only be a 1/100 movement or 1%. So, a wide angle lens will be a lot more tolerant of camera shake than a telephoto lens.

Nicely said, if I don't have a decent tripod along, and I need to minimize camera shake, I will shoot with at the widest angle I can get away with.

[joebranko]

Bracing against a rail or pillar is a great start. If I can, I like pressing the base of the camera against the railing or telephone pole or tree, that way one direction of movement is relatively constrained and holding the camera still gets a whole lot easier. Elbows against the chest holding the camera while bracing against a solid object works well too.

The issue with crop versus FF camera is a tad more complex. If I were shooting a FF camera with a 75mm lens and you were shooting a 1.5x crop factor camera with a 50mm lens, we would get the same FoV. However, your crop factor camera would likely be a fair bit lighter than my FF, so Newton's 1st law of motion comes into play; a heavier camera will be easier to hold steady because it has more mass (weighs more than the crop factor camera). That's really the main difference; I find that I can hand hold my FF at least 1 eV better than my crop frame.

The real gamechanger for handholding is the FoV of a lens. Now the math here isn't quite accurate, but you can sort of see the gist. If my long telephoto lens, with a FoV of 5 degrees gets deflected 1 degree (which isn't very much) 1/5 = 20% so there is a lot of relative motion that will end up as motion blur as slower shutter speeds. If I take a wide angle lens with a FoV of 100 degrees. If my camera shake introduces the same 1 degree movement of the camera body, it will only be a 1/100 movement or 1%. So, a wide angle lens will be a lot more tolerant of camera shake than a telephoto lens.

Nicely said, if I don't have a decent tripod along, and I need to minimize camera shake, I will shoot with at the widest angle I can get away with.

1eV? Thanks for the comments! I thought the image stabilizer on the FF was somehow more effective than on a crop frame...and it probably is with the higher mass.

[Manfred M]

1eV?

eV = exposure value. It's a simplified way of expressing a one stop difference in exposure that can be achieved by adjusting the aperture setting or shutter speed or ISO (or any combination of these settings).

[joebranko]

eV = exposure value. It's a simplified way of expressing a one stop difference in exposure that can be achieved by adjusting the aperture setting or shutter speed or ISO (or any combination of these settings).

Thanks Manfred!