Waterfalls (aperture question)

[petcarseats]

I needed this info thanks mate

Regards

Kelly

[fletch]

Originally Posted by nemesis256

Wow, thanks for all the replies, I didn't expect to get this much. The whole argument on the last two pages is rather confusing, but from what I can tell it doesn't relate to my original post. I was asking about aperture because it is one of the ways to not over expose photos of waterfalls. In this case I don't care about DoF, which I think is what kencaleno was referring to.

You are correct - It doesn't relate to your original post. Hopefully you got the help you needed by the time the internet kicked in!

Basically use the smallest aperture and lowest ISO you can and this will give you the longest shutter speed. DSLRs can achive much smaller apertures than your camera but they cost.

Originally Posted by kencaleno

No apology meant or implied,quote the whole sentence "I'm sorry for You" Pity in other words- Circles of confusion give you acceptable sharpness,as exact sharpness is impossible to achieve. The exposure value for basic daylight exposure is 14.6 EV, ( At ISO100,1/100 at F16) and the only way to get this same EV in P&S cameras For the same ISO is to multiply shutter speed 8 times = 1/800 at an aperture equalling F16 which is 3 stops brighter= F5.6 allowing for the difference in circle of confusion diameters from 0.020mm in dslrs and 0.006mm in point and shoots, that's what Circles of confusion have to do with it.
Why don't you people take a course in advanced photography so you can understand. I have already given you two independent references that back me up. Ken

Ken - Its like you keep shouting at a room of people who agree with you but haven't got a clue why you keep shouting because they were talking about something else.

Originally Posted by kencaleno

I'm sorry

I also accept you appolgy.

[nemesis256]

Originally Posted by fletch

Basically use the smallest aperture and lowest ISO you can and this will give you the longest shutter speed. DSLRs can achive much smaller apertures than your camera but they cost.

That's exactly what I was doing. I'll keep an eye out for DSLR cameras that interest me, but I kinda doubt I'll buy anything soon. I don't do this enough to justify the cost, plus I haven't even had my current camera for a year yet. Maybe I'll get a polarizing filter and hold it in front of the lens...

[fletch]

If you don't want to spend loads of money you can pick up ND filters for £10 ($15 US) and just hold them in front of the lens. They will give you much longer exposures than a polarising filter. A polariser only gives 1-2 stops, the eqivalent of having a lens that instead of stopping at f/8 could stop down to f/11 or f/16. An ND could block a lot more light, the eqivanlent as stopping down to f/22 or f/45 if you get a strong enough one.

[nemesis256]

Awesome, thanks for the info!

[dakwegmo]

If you don't want to hand hold it, you could try something like this: Cokin Filter Holder for Compact Digital Cameras.

[nemesis256]

I'll have to look into something like that, thanks.