[Ace]

I am taking a backpacking trip through the Zion narrows this week and need some help with my photo skills. I was hoping someone could advise me on a decent exposure length to set my camera at to have motion in the moving river. I know it depends on flow rate/ river speed but I'm just looking for a good range to be in because I don't know if 1/4 is sufficient or if I should be more in the multiple minute range. I also would like to know from anyone who has first hand knowledge of shooting in the Narrows, if a polarizer will be sufficient to lengthen my exposure or if I need to bring my 9 stop ND filter. Thanks.

[clockworkrat]

I am taking a backpacking trip through the Zion narrows this week and need some help with my photo skills. I was hoping someone could advise me on a decent exposure length to set my camera at to have motion in the moving river. I know it depends on flow rate/ river speed but I'm just looking for a good range to be in because I don't know if 1/4 is sufficient or if I should be more in the multiple minute range. I also would like to know from anyone who has first hand knowledge of shooting in the Narrows, if a polarizer will be sufficient to lengthen my exposure or if I need to bring my 9 stop ND filter. Thanks.

I'm quite fond of 1/10-1/15s. With a 28mm (or even a 50mm) on my K-30 it's still just fast enough for a hand-held shot, but shows the water in motion. Here are a couple of examples.

[jatrax]

I shoot waterfalls at 20 seconds to start then move short or long as required. Some of it is available light and aperture, some is what you want the water to look like. Too long and you get a white blob, too short and you get stop motion or not enough blur. That is for water falls, rapids might be a little shorter???

[Ace]

Thanks for the info. I should add that I will be shooting with my k-50 and a sigma 17-50. The majority of the shots will be at the wide end. And everything will be shot with a tripod so keeping times short enough to hand hold is not an issue.

[Adam]

I am taking a backpacking trip through the Zion narrows this week and need some help with my photo skills. I was hoping someone could advise me on a decent exposure length to set my camera at to have motion in the moving river. I know it depends on flow rate/ river speed but I'm just looking for a good range to be in because I don't know if 1/4 is sufficient or if I should be more in the multiple minute range. I also would like to know from anyone who has first hand knowledge of shooting in the Narrows, if a polarizer will be sufficient to lengthen my exposure or if I need to bring my 9 stop ND filter. Thanks.

Multi-second exposures with an ND filter can yield a very pleasing effect.

A Basic Guide to Long Exposures - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

[DAKS]

try taking some photos of the moving water using multiple exposures.

[clockworkrat]

Thanks for the info. I should add that I will be shooting with my k-50 and a sigma 17-50. The majority of the shots will be at the wide end. And everything will be shot with a tripod so keeping times short enough to hand hold is not an issue.

Just experiment then. If you're going to have a tripod then just do some extreme bracketing and take your pick once you get home.

[baro-nite]

Some like really smoothing out the water with long (multi-second) exposures, others like retaining a sense of motion with shorter (1/10 to 1/4 second) exposures. Much of the best Narrows photography is in indirect light (reflected off the cliffs), where it is dark enough that you don't necessarily need filters to get into the latter range or even longer. I did find a GND useful, and of course a polarizer for controlling reflections. A 9-stop filter would be mean very long exposures when you're in that beautiful glowing indirect light. Although one possible benefit of that is that if you're in there when it's crowded, a very long exposure will tend to make people disappear, if they're moving through. It can be hard to get wide shots without people in them. That will mainly affect you in the lower (day-hikeable) part of the Narrows.

Check out benhorne.wordpress.com if you haven't already.

Enjoy the trip, it's a fantastic place. Challenging to photograph, but with incredible opportunities.

[civiletti]

It depends on how fast the water is moving, adjusted for field of view, and the effect you want. I usually shoot waterfalls at 1/2"-2". Gentle wave action often looks good with very long exposures - even minutes long.

[Ace]

Some like really smoothing out the water with long (multi-second) exposures, others like retaining a sense of motion with shorter (1/10 to 1/4 second) exposures. Much of the best Narrows photography is in indirect light (reflected off the cliffs), where it is dark enough that you don't necessarily need filters to get into the latter range or even longer. I did find a GND useful, and of course a polarizer for controlling reflections. A 9-stop filter would be mean very long exposures when you're in that beautiful glowing indirect light. Although one possible benefit of that is that if you're in there when it's crowded, a very long exposure will tend to make people disappear, if they're moving through. It can be hard to get wide shots without people in them. That will mainly affect you in the lower (day-hikeable) part of the Narrows.

Check out benhorne.wordpress.com if you haven't already.

Enjoy the trip, it's a fantastic place. Challenging to photograph, but with incredible opportunities.

Thanks baro-nite for that link. I was going to complain that I didn't want to deal with changing filters in those conditions but I will shut up. That guy was lugging around an 8x10! I'm going to have to step my game up a bit.

[arnold]

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion. Personally, I am much more impressed with scattered drops crisply frozen in place. I prefer the water to look like water, not some strange liquid concoction. I realize this is not a common opinion, but all the more reason to put it out there.

[civiletti]

This is a 3" exposure just above a waterfall in Yellowstone.

---------- Post added 08-03-15 at 06:50 PM ----------



---------- Post added 08-03-15 at 06:50 PM ----------

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion. Personally, I am much more impressed with scattered drops crisply frozen in place. I prefer the water to look like water, not some strange liquid concoction. I realize this is not a common opinion, but all the more reason to put it out there.

I think it is a matter of taste. I like it because it creates soft parallel lines and suggests motion, but your view that it is cliché is just as valid.

[mikeSF]

It depends on how fast the water is moving, adjusted for field of view, and the effect you want. I usually shoot waterfalls at 1/2"-2". Gentle wave action often looks good with very long exposures - even minutes long.

this.
There isn't a shutter speed for "best" anything. Speed of water, your distance from it, and focal length are the variables. You could always bracket shutter speed and see what you like. yes, 1/4th sec is a reasonable starting point for flowing river water.

---------- Post added 08-03-2015 at 07:00 PM ----------

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion. Personally, I am much more impressed with scattered drops crisply frozen in place. I prefer the water to look like water, not some strange liquid concoction. I realize this is not a common opinion, but all the more reason to put it out there.

there are many ways to render water in a photograph and by saying you only like crisp droplets only reveals the limitations you place on your own art. I like both but probably favor the implied motion of streaking water, especially as a textural contrast to some stationary rocks or other strong subject matter. Live and let live.

[hcc]

Shutter speed is the key and the Tv mode is strongly recommended. There are however two schools: slow shutter speed and high-shutter speed. The former, slow shutter speed, has been discussed by earlier posts here. I use the second approach: high shutter speed. I prefer to capture bubbles and droplets, frozen in the action. I posted a couple of examples at:
hcc's Album: Air-water flows - PentaxForums.com

For this type of shooting, you need relatively good lighting and a shutter speed of 1/200s minimum, preferably above 1/1,000 s. This technique is also used for breaking waves and surfers, although it works very nicely with dam spillways, waterfalls and fountains.

Hope that the comment may help.

[lytrytyr]

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion.

So very true.