Yes, Another waterfall

[Yisehaq]

Hi All,

Another water fall.
Exif
F/stop 11
Shutter speed 1/200
ISO 200
Av Mode
Evaluative metering

On tripod @ 300mm

I metered from a bush which was near by at the AF point. Put -2/3 compensation (based on understanding exposure by bryan Peterson book).
Seems to work for me.

I only sharpened it a bit.
Your c& c awaited.

[Marko]

I like this shot Yisehaq and the exposure seems good to me. There are one or two bright areas in the water (lower middle, right corner) that could be burned in just a touch. and the rocks on left could be dodged a touch. (This is normal btw even with a proper exposure)

If I had one note of improvement it is on sharpness. For me the shot is not sharp enough. 1/200 for rushing waterfalls is likely too slow and that's why it is not sharp. You COULD have gone the other way with a slow shutter speed for a blur effect, but the way it is now, it 'neither here nor there'.
Hope that helps
Marko

[Yisehaq]

it 'neither here nor there'.
Marko

Thanks Marko, I sensed that too.

[djKianoosh]

i agree with the point about the shutter speed. a neutral density filter on the lens would allow you to slow the shutter down if it's too bright..

now, for my benefit, can someone explain if an aperture of f11 is all that necessary in a photo like this? I mean, couldn't you get away with the widest aperture, since there's really not that much depth of field in a shot like this? well, there actually is a bit on the top and bottom... but you know what I mean, right?

[Yisehaq]

I don't see why not. May be not 2.8. This shot doesn't definitely require the depth of field that f11 provides.
One thing though if you use wider aperture this you will have to use faster shatter speed. Therefore, if you are looking for panning of the waterfall that would be difficult I guess.

[Mad Aussie]

Yisehaq ... my view is similar to what Marko has said in that 1/200th doesn't really show enough of anything in particular. If it was a much faster shutter speed then you may have stopped the action and we'd have nice clear droplets etc to look at. If you used a much slower speed then perhaps we'd see a more blurred effect to show the motion.
Then of course there's the super slow speed that gives the veil effect that we all have to try at least once :D

Unless you are going to use a high shutter speed and stop the action then I always focus on a rock or something close to the waterfall. No point focusing on the water when the intention is to blur it anyhow. http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/searchme.gif

djKianoosh ... I don't believe f11 is necessary and further to that, unless you are trying to achieve a particular DOF then the aperture is going to be restricted by the other settings you use. For instance if you are using a slow shutter for the veil effect then the aperture may have to be much higher ... or a fast shutter speed might require a low f-stop depending on the available light. Then your choice of ISO will also be a factor and a way to achieve the desired speed/f-stop you seek.
But I think you understand all that as you obviously understand Neutral Density filters (I use my circular polarizer cause I don't have any n grad filters) but hopefully my rave helped someone. http://www.mtbdirt.com.au/home/smf/Smileys/classic/hihi.gif

[Marko]

F2.8 would not have been enough here as there is still some 'depth' to the image. If this was a flat plane like a wall, then yes, sure, F11 or F2.8 all good, but that is not the case here. Exactly which F-stop you choose is personal based on the effect you seek.

[Yisehaq]

Thanks Mad Aussie and Marko.