The how to shoot a waterfall scene ?

[beaco]

HDR is one option. But I generally find a tripod or timer delay and a slower shutter seems to get reasonable results. If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.

[Darvidanoar]

... If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.

I have read a few people say this on this forum recently and I'm not sure I understand the concept. Can someone explain how a CPL is used to reduce dynamic range?

[David]

I have read a few people say this on this forum recently and I'm not sure I understand the concept. Can someone explain how a CPL is used to reduce dynamic range?

I wonder about that myself: I have had it suggested to me I could use both the ND (that would give the sky a better chance of not blowing out I suppose) and a CPL at the same time but I have not tried that yet David. Do you think that would work....hmm.. I am going to test the notion in my back yard today and see how it goes.

[Darvidanoar]

I wonder about that myself: I have had it suggested to me I could use both the ND (that would give the sky a better chance of not blowing out I suppose) and a CPL at the same time but I have not tried that yet David. Do you think that would work....hmm.. I am going to test the notion in my back yard today and see how it goes.

Me too. I am going to have a play this weekend and shoot some shots with and without the CPL and look at the histograms...

[Darvidanoar]

... I am going to have a play this weekend and shoot some shots with and without the CPL and look at the histograms...

Ok, it is a sunny morning and a good opportunity to check out the effect of a CPL.

Looking at these images (SOOC), the effect of the CPL is pretty much as expected, the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

So yes, in certain contitions where you might be able to position yourself at 90degrees to the direction of the sunlight, a CPL would reduce the glare in the sky and the specular highlights. However, in the situation we were in at Cedar creek and Curtis falls, David, with the sun directly behind; I don't think a CPL would have helped much.

[David]

Lets go back to the OP--

I noted that shots taken at a waterfall without any CPL or ND filter attached on a clear blue sky day result in blown out skies and not very good results in the end in the areas where sunlight reflects on leaves, rocks, water at the base, etc etc.

Beaco suggested trying a polarising filter...

HDR is one option. But I generally find a tripod or timer delay and a slower shutter seems to get reasonable results. If the sky is blowing out try a polarising filter.

Darvidanoar and I were puzzled by this notion which has been suggested by other people in other places before, so David did an experiment and the results speak for themselves really.

Ok, it is a sunny morning and a good opportunity to check out the effect of a CPL.

Looking at these images (SOOC), the effect of the CPL is pretty much as expected, the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

So yes, in certain conditions where you might be able to position yourself at 90degrees to the direction of the sunlight, a CPL would reduce the glare in the sky and the specular highlights. However, in the situation we were in at Cedar creek and Curtis falls, David, with the sun directly behind; I don't think a CPL would have helped much.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noted, but I also noticed the left side of the sky is bluer than the left, a dead give away for the use of a CPL.

Conclusion: A CPL is not a good tool for dealing with blown out skies at a waterfall scene and where it could help would only be if you can get 90 degrees to the sun and only on the left hand side of the frame..its value fades fast. These images challenge the view that a CPL will help with blown out skies

Steve noted that a CPL will do very little or nothing to help the blown out skies above a waterfall shot; Darvidnoar has demonstrated that this is right.

Dave De Groote A CPL will

work on an overcast day to reduce reflections on the water and wet rocks (and foliage). It also gives you another 1-1.5 stops of light loss for slower shutters.

Steve was thinking of skies above the waterfall, Dave De was focussing on the sunlight reflections below the skyline which definitely do go a long way towards evaporating with a CPL on the front of the lens.

Arthur, I always assume he is right; tells me a correctly used CPL will reduce the highlight requirement by half a stop (good for the waterfalls exposure) at least which is better than nothing and Arthur also says an ND will NOT fix my exposure problems at waterfalls ..

" A ND filter will alter the exposure exactly the same way for both the highlights and the shadows.. so while you think you're software will struggle with even darker shadows, it's not. the exposure difference between the highlights and the shadows will be exactly the same as without the ND filter ".

So, out with the ND filter for waterfalls and in with the CPL and go back home if the sky is not overcast and learn how to blend multiple exposures together in case it all goes pear shaped on site.

Thanks all for your comments and ideas: the exploration of waterfall photography continues.

[Darvidanoar]

Noted, but I also noticed the left side of the sky is bluer than the left, a dead give away for the use of a CPL.

=

... the area to the left of this scene is at about the 90degree mark and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced ...

[David]

=

Yes indeed, we are on the same page ; CPL is not much use for the context of waterfall shooting in respect to overcoming blown out (non cloudy/overcast) skies

[Darvidanoar]

Yes indeed, we are on the same page ; CPL is not much use for the context of waterfall shooting in respect to overcoming blown out (non cloudy/overcast) skies

emmm, I actually think I said in certain situations it could be useful. (a tool to have in your arsenal). Perhaps it didn't come across like that...

[David]

emmm, I actually think I said in certain situations it could be useful. (a tool to have in your arsenal). Perhaps it didn't come across like that...

Okay Dave, explain to me if you will. Even if you get the idealised 90 degree angle to the sun you get an uneven colour range across the skyline so it is obvious a CPL has been used..if that is a useful result for skies above a waterfall I am scratching my head to see how. Are you suggesting that if we go to a waterfall when it is 90 degrees to the sun we might get some value out of whacking on a CPL for a blown out skyline in clear conditions. I think I would rather wait until the conditions are overcast before I go near a waterfall again because figuring out when a waterfall scene is going to be 90 degrees to the sun so a CPL 'could' be useful would be a wasted trip to a place I may not see again for awhile.

I will use a CPL for waterfall shots, but from what I can tell they give you no real solution to blown our skies on days which are not overcast... and that is what I was looking to address here amongst other things.

[Darvidanoar]

Sure, perhaps a picture will help:

at 17mm, the field of view is about 67 degrees. The area to the left of this scene is the point where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the direction light entering the lens and this is where the CPL performs best to reduce the general glare in the sky and the specular highlights. To the right of the image, where the angle of incidence is reduced, the CPL has had little or no affect on the glare or specular highlights.

I'm saying, if the conditions permit the CPL to work for you, then why not use it?