When you take a pic, you have to have the correct amount of light to get it appear correctly exposed. in your situation it is extremely likely that you are overexposing the shot..
Try putting the camera into program mode and adjusting the wheel till you get 1/20 shutter speed. it may not let you do it. this is because you will hit the max fstop of the lens first. you will have to reduce the amount of light. I assume you are already at min iso. you can try putting a polarizer filter on the lens, this worth about 2 stops less light.
If not enough then remove polarizer and go with a neutral density filter. probably near 4-5 stops, which is extremely dark. you can also simply try to take the pic just before dark when the light itself is less. personally, I would go for the latter way..
You do know that if you get the shutter speed slow enough, about 1/4sec, then you will have to have the camera on a tripod with cable release. otherwise the waves will flow alright but the rest of the scene will be blurred...
You probably increased the shutterspeed without readjusting the aperture apropriately, thusly causing the sensor to receive to much light..
In order to get blurred waves around 1/4s is a pretty good shutter speed value to start with. Depending on the speed/strength of the surf you might have to readjust up or down a bit..
At that slow of a shutter speed use a tripod and shoot in Tv (shutter priority mode), so you won't have to worry about setting the right aperture - the camera will automatically take care of it. Depending on the lens you are using and what the smallest aperture is, it might be hard to get this effect on a sunny day. The is too much light to slow the shutter speed down that much. A filter might help or try around dusk / dawn..
Hope this helpscheers,simon.
C_Heath wrote:.
I wanted to try to blur some waves at the beach this week. Well, ifI slow the shutter down to say, 1/15 and f20 or so, it was ok butnot really blurry. Well, I tried it on manual and played around andnever could get a picture that wasnt completely burnt up with light..
Just wanted to try to blur some waves..
Check out my new Pbase gallery.........
Http://www.pbase.com/c_heathCheck out my new Pbase gallery.........
Http://www.pbase.com/c_heath..
You can also reduce the effective ISO by stacking. For example take 20 shots at ISO 100 @ 1/20s (tripod+timer/cable), then stack them using photoshop layers. This should be the equivalient of ISO 0.2 @ 1s. This will also reduce the amount of noise in your picture..
Regards,Gary Pearson.
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/garypearson/..
GPearson wrote:.
You can also reduce the effective ISO by stacking. For exampletake 20 shots at ISO 100 @ 1/20s (tripod+timer/cable), then stackthem using photoshop layers. This should be the equivalient of ISO0.2 @ 1s. This will also reduce the amount of noise in yourpicture..
Now that's an interesting idea. I remember seeing some shots years ago in a magazine, of the waves breaking on the seashore. In the example I saw, not the same as your idea, three shots had been taken, each through a different colour filter - red, green, blue. The result, since all three colours had been used, was a full colour image. That is, of the non-moving parts of the scene. But where the waves were in motion, there were different colours showing in an interesting pattern. Might be interesting to try this idea, then combine the red/green/blue in post processing...
Using ISO 100 on a reasonably bright day will result in an exposure of something like 1/125 at f/11. if you want to change the shutter speed to 1/4 sec (5 stops) the lens would need to be closed down 5 stops to compenate, i.e. f/64, which your lens almost certainyl won;t have..
The simplest solution is to get a neutral density filter which cuts out a lot of the light, so you can use a slow shutter spped even when it's bright.Mike..
I don't think stacking is the appropriate technique here. To my understanding, it's used in low light photgraphy and with rather stationary objects in order to receive a properly exposed image and not to slow down shutterspeed. During the day when at 1/20 s the image is already correctly exposed, all stacking would cause is overexposure. 1/20s is (generally speaking, there are always exceptions) not slow enough to obtain the fluid motion of water (breaking waves, waterfalls, ...). Besides the overexposure, I would also imagine that using 20 different images with the water breaking at different points would cause a rather blurred image - even though, thinking about it further, it might give it some interesting and unique effect. Using 20 times the same image would neither help your noise nor establish the flowing motion of the wave as effectively you are still taking the piture at 1/20s....
GPearson wrote:.
You can also reduce the effective ISO by stacking. For exampletake 20 shots at ISO 100 @ 1/20s (tripod+timer/cable), then stackthem using photoshop layers. This should be the equivalient of ISO0.2 @ 1s. This will also reduce the amount of noise in yourpicture..
Regards,Gary Pearson.
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/garypearson/..
If you average when stacking, not sum, then I think it is exactly akin to using a long shutter speed. I give an example here..
I took 20 pictures of my bath running it is quite easy to imagine the same effect of waves on a beach. I shot f2.8, 1/8s at ISO 800 (very poor quality on my camera)..
Left is before stacking, right is after. See the smooth water effect vs the splashy effect..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Here are 100% samples see the improvement after stacking!.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Becksi wrote:.
I don't think stacking is the appropriate technique here. To myunderstanding, it's used in low light photgraphy and with ratherstationary objects in order to receive a properly exposed image andnot to slow down shutterspeed. During the day when at 1/20 s theimage is already correctly exposed, all stacking would cause isoverexposure. 1/20s is (generally speaking, there are alwaysexceptions) not slow enough to obtain the fluid motion of water(breaking waves, waterfalls, ...). Besides the overexposure, Iwould also imagine that using 20 different images with the waterbreaking at different points would cause a rather blurred image -even though, thinking about it further, it might give it someinteresting and unique effect. Using 20 times the same image wouldneither help your noise nor establish the flowing motion of thewave as effectively you are still taking the piture at 1/20s....
GPearson wrote:.
You can also reduce the effective ISO by stacking. For exampletake 20 shots at ISO 100 @ 1/20s (tripod+timer/cable), then stackthem using photoshop layers. This should be the equivalient of ISO0.2 @ 1s. This will also reduce the amount of noise in yourpicture..
Regards,Gary Pearson.
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/garypearson/.
Regards,Gary Pearson.
Http://www.flickr.com/photos/garypearson/..
Set your camera for Shutter Priority. (TV). Set the shutter to a nice slow speed and allow the camera to set the apature. You will most likely have to use a tri pod to eliminate camera shake. You may be able to get away with a hand held shot with a lens that uses IS.http://www.pbase.com/mikesf..
As you noted increasing exposure time during the middle of the day means everything gets blown out, that's why the only solution really is a filter to reduce the amount of light coming in..
What you needed is called a neutral density filter - basically a tinted piece of glass (though real filters you buy are indeed "Neutral" in terms of having no color cast at all)..
If you don't have a real filter, or don't want to buy one, or don't have a camera that can even use a filter, there are other things you can use in a pinch - sunglasses, dark glass of any sort (though if it curves at all it wlll affect the image), possibly even some light fabric stretched across the front of the lens/camera..
> Kendallhttp://InsideAperture.comhttp://www.pbase.com/kgelnerhttp://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home..