Since there is such a large water flow, wouldn't it be better to use a relatively fast shutter speed to capture those delicate tendrils of water which would be lost in a long exposure? IMHO, the idea behind shooting a large fall is to capture the power of it, rather than a silky feel to the flow. At least I was never satisfied with a long exposure in shooting Vernal Falls for just that reason.Originally Posted by Eric Leppanen
But maybe that's just me.
My 2.4 cents.
Dave, if you can find a copy of Yosemite Reflections (there was one on Amazon a moment ago for just $12), it is the words of John Muir with photos by Ted Orland.
IMO, it has the finest image of Yosemite Falls I've ever seen and is just as you described, with the sun backlighting the water curling off the falls as it drops. Charlie Cramer also has a very nice one. Those two images, the one in Michael Frye's book, and my own, were all taken early in the day from pretty much the same position, and much earlier in the year when the falls were full and those curls were prominent.
I have never asked Ted about his shutter speed, but it is a very sharp image with lots of implied movement, but none that seems to be actual movement due to a slower shutter speed. Regardless, it was perfectly timed. Stunning.
Michael's times for sunlight on the falls are fine for May, but the sun this time of year rises much further north of Half Dome and tracks much higher across the sky than two months ago. You might find some backlit water, but I wouldn't count on getting much of a shower. This was one of the driest winters, reminscent of the 80s when I saw the falls dry by July 4 one year.
Take a peek at the webcams at yosemite.org and you can see when the sun illuminates the wall to the north of Half Dome. That will give you an idea of when it hits Yosemite Fall. The falls are in an alcove that is at almost the same angle as that wall, but with a cliff in the way that casts a shadow until the sun has tracked far enough south to light them up.
David and Keith,
You guys are right, for shooting such a large, dynamic waterfall a shorter shutter speed would be better. I shot Yosemite two years ago and more recently I've shot smaller, more intimate waterfalls where the "flowing" look was more appropriate. With regards to shutter and film speeds, here is what Michael Frye suggests:
Experienced photographers often choose a faster shutter speed to freeze the motion of a large waterfall, accentuating the shape and texture of the spray...a speed of at least 1/125 of a second or faster will freeze the water's motion.
In bright sunlight you'd be shooting 1/100 second at f/16 with ISO 100 film per the sunny 16 rule. My recollection is that I was closer to f/22-f/32 when shooting at the base of the upper falls with my 4x5, so film speed is indeed an issue. B&W apparently is not a problem (Tri-X, HP5+, etc.), but color would seem to pose a challenge. Provia pushed one stop would be marginal at f/22, and contrast starts getting out of control if you push further. Maybe Portra 400NC?
It is fantastic. I was only wiped out physically...mentally I was high. No one else was on the Dome -- or anywhere near as far as I could tell. The Valley floor was a zoo, but none of that could reach me there.
The trip with the 4x5 wasn't too bad -- just long...and I made one of my favorite images I have made in the Park (of the arch). The camera pack and pod probably only weighed 30 or 35 pounds. When I did the hike with the 8x10 (60+ lbs of gear), I went a little up hill from Indian Rock, and then straight down cross-country to Snow Creek and the trail...quite a work-out for the knees. Then I took the trail down to Mirror Lake (what a great trail -- with Half Dome just sitting there in front of you!) By the time I got down to the lake it got dark. I did not take enough food and water, so I guess I "bonked". Foot-sore and exhausted, I could only walk for 10 minutes or so without stopping...and I hated stopping because it hurt so much to get going again. I should of had Glenn stash a bicycle at the lake for me! I would have found a way to ride it down, 8x10 and all!
I'll do it again...but I'll take my boys and get them to carry more food and some of my gear!
Vaughn
Eric, the other pieces of the puzzle to zeroing the proper shutter speed are the lens choice and distance from the fall. In 35-speak, for freezing motion, "one over the focal length of the lens" is starting point, and you go from there.HTML Code:Experienced photographers often choose a faster shutter speed to freeze the motion of a large waterfall, accentuating the shape and texture of the spray...a speed of at least 1/125 of a second or faster will freeze the water's motion.
But motion is relative and typically, the closer to the falls and the longer the lens, the faster the corresponding shutter speed.
Students this past May tested this and we concluded from across the valley with the falls at their peak, that between 1 and 2 stops below 1 over the focal length gave enough motion to convey the power of the fall without it looking like a white tornado.
When we opted to freeze the motion entirely, it looked like an icecycle, which is nothing like Ted's snap.
But up close, from the trail, is a completely different matter. There, the balance between implied motion and actual motion is trickier, and a faster shutter speed used at the precise moment to capture the curls at their apex seems to the key.
Pushing some PROVIA 100 a couple stops seemed to be the ticket. If my memory serves me, what is also amazing about Ted's photo is that the sun is included, and there is a spectacular starburst but no flare. Just slivers of water that resemble individual hairs peeling off a twisted column of water that looks like one of those carved candles.
Join the club! I hiked down from Mt. Hoffman via that trail and when I got to Mirror Lake, I made a beeline (more of an awkward stumble) for the payphone. That trail takes every bit of energy you have in exchange for the awesome views.HTML Code:I did not take enough food and water, so I guess I "bonked".
And Vaughn, the more I hear of the antics of those boys, the more I get a vision of you as a sow with three cubs starring in a Disney feature.
Keith,
When shooting across the valley with a normal lens (50mm in 35mm format), I presume this would work out to the following:
50mm lens = approx. 1/60 shutter speed (nearest full stop) plus 1 stop minus 2 stops equals 1/30 second target shutter speed.
In your experience, would this target shutter speed also be applied to normal lenses in larger film formats (approximately 150mm in 4x5, 300mm in 8x10)? Or would you go through the following calculations:
4x5 format: 150mm lens = approx. 1/125 shutter speed (nearest full stop) plus 1 stop minus 2 stops equals 1/60 of a second target shutter speed.
8x10 format: 300mm lens = 1/256 plus 1 minus 2 equals approx. 1/125 of a second target shutter speed.
Due to the amount of haze that frequently inhabits the valley, I often prefer shooting 8x10 for across-the-valley shots to compensate for the haze diffraction. 1/125 of a second is not possible with 8x10 (assuming shooting at around f/45) even with pushing Provia in bright daylight.
"And Vaughn, the more I hear of the antics of those boys, the more I get a vision of you as a sow with three cubs starring in a Disney feature."
Are you perhaps referring to our last visit to Yosemite when my boys were doing some bouldering behind the AA Gallery wearing their roller skates?
Vaughn
Eric, I think again, it is relative. I started with a 35mm camera and so all my decisions are relative to what I learned in that format.
Since a 90mm 4x5 lens has approximately the same field of view as a 24mm on a 35-SLR, I'd use the 1/30 to freeze the motion, and 1/15 to 1/8 to get some implied motion.
I apply the same logic when calculating exposures for my Pentax 67. My Pentax 45mm lens is approximately the same field of view as a 24mm on a 35-SLR, and so, to freeze motion with it, I need 1/30 of a second. 1/15 and 1/8 get me some a bit of gesture in the water. It makes a huge difference.
The small apertures necessary for so much of my own work, given my fondness for near/far compositions, (plus a polarizer) makes the need for speed problematic. So I routinely push my Provia two stops. That film pushes so well and Calypso Imaging pushes the film without a service charge, so it is a workable solution.
LOL. I heard something about climbing some trees, but bouldering is even better.HTML Code:Are you perhaps referring to our last visit to Yosemite when my boys were doing some bouldering behind the AA Gallery wearing their roller skates?
It would be a couple of hours to a good view of the falls and about a 1200' elevation gain.
Note that the falls are already almost dry as of early July 2007 The drought in California has caused them to dry up early this year. In fact they are almost not worth the effort right now. I would go for the rock formations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks