Preventing waterfalls from saturating

[drm]

So as you can see with my post today of Tunnel Falls on Eagle Creek, my new camera with its wonderful wide-angle lens still saturates bright waterfalls when surrounded by typically dark forest.

I've never gotten into manually setting anything on a camera. Of course it has its auto setting mode, but my Kodak Z1015 IS has some manual modes:

Aperture Priority mode controls depth of field (the range of sharpness). The aperture setting may be affected by optical zoom.

Shutter Priority mode prevents blur when your subject is moving. The camera automatically sets the aperture for proper exposure. (Use a tripod for slow shutter speeds.)

Manual mode offers the highest level of creative control. (To prevent blur, use a tripod for slow shutter speeds.)

If somebody has a link to a site that explains how I might use one of the above, that would be much appreciated as well.

[Waffle Stomper]

If you are working with a tripod one thing I do is take two or more photos exposing for the falls and also for the trees. Then in photoshop or other image editor I superimpose the layers and combine them. It is a bit of work but the results can be very good. It is a matter of working with transparency and the erase tool to blend them together. I don't use layer effects.

[The C-Ws]

Can your camera take a polarizer? That will probably help you a lot in terms of preventing glare. If your camera cannot take filters, your best option short of photoshop is to bracket your exposures up to 1 stop darker and lighter than what the camera suggests, then picking the one that is most accurate for the waterfall. If your camera has a center-weighted metering mode, that could help you as well.

You will also probably have more luck on a cloudy day, but that means that you sacrifice good views. I suppose you can't win at everything.

--Casey

[Sore Feet]

After looking at your picture, I can only assume you meant you want to prevent blown highlights (saturation refers to excessive color). Point and Shoot cameras generally don't allow much control in cases like this, almost all of them use a very liberal evaluative metering mode that averages the exposure a little more than halfway between the brightest spot and the darkest spot it can detect, and you're basically at the mercy of what the camera wants to do. If your camera has a manual mode (look for an M on the dial or in the shot settings), thats the one you want to play around with, but you will most likely need a tripod. If you want the most control, you'll need a DSLR or at the very least a high end pro-sumer type (Canon G10 and the Panasonic G1 are the two best on the market, Canon SX10 isn't bad either). Otherwise Casey has the right idea - overcast is your friend.

[Bosterson]

Digital cameras lack the dynamic range to render scenes with tones that are both very bright and very dark. Furthermore, they have an especially hard time with very very bright tones, and tend to "clip" the highlights, meaning you lose all detail in the very whitest whites.

Shooting on overcast days will definitely help. (The soft, natural light is actually more pleasing in general, if you're not trying to capture a skyscape or sunset colors.) If you're going to shoot in direct sun and you know you're going to shoot reflective surfaces (eg, water), dial your exposure down a little bit to prevent blowing out your highlights. (See your camera manual for how to do that.) You can also check your exposure by taking a picture, checking it onscreen and looking at the histogram, then adjust the exposure and reshoot.

Another solution? Shoot print film!

[Sore Feet]

Another solution? Shoot print film!

Serious? You're actually advocating the use of print film?
I can understand slide film, but print film offers absolutely no advantage over digital (or over ANY format for that matter) in terms of dynamic range, color or detail. It just won't cut it. Film won't clip highlights like digital does, but it will still overexpose bright areas to the point of washing out detail and underexpose shadows to the point of looking muddy, and at least with digital you can do something about it after the fact.

[Bosterson]

print film offers absolutely no advantage over digital

Oh no, I've treaded into a digital vs. film debate!

The real problem this guy is having is that the scene is too contrasty. That's a function of the light, and has nothing to do with his equipment or medium. The solution is to wait for better light, so I was mostly kidding about switching to print film.

That said, you have already acknowledged that properly exposed film doesn't clip highlights the way digital does. Furthermore, latitude-wise, digital and slide have about five stops, while print has seven. (Black and white negative has ten, but I assume we're talking about color.) This is in a single exposure - HDR is a different story. And, if you really mess up your exposure, film is better at producing a usable print than digital.

Whether print film lacks the "detail" of digital is a complicated problem. At the very least, it's irrelevant for someone's snapshots of their hike. At most, the "detail" of digital is entwined in a complex relationship of lens, sensor size, pixel density, processing, sharpening, etc. And the ability to do something "after the fact" with digital is first a post-hoc solution to a problem that should be solved in-camera (eg, shaping your light or waiting for better natural light), and also ignores the fact that film can be scanned. (And before that, people used darkrooms!)

Of course, print films lack the color saturation and contrast of a good slide film, so no serious landscapist would be out shooting print film. However, no serious landscapist would be shooting a contrasty scene in the middle of the day either, so it's a moot point.

I would say that if you're planning to shoot in bright, contrasty, mid-day sunlight, a disposable film camera will probably do a better job than a digital point and shoot.

[Sore Feet]

Okay, I was just making sure more than anything else that you weren't being serious about the print film thing. I shot with the stuff for several years before I knew what I was doing and suffered all the more for it. I don't care to get into a film vs. digital debate, but I still think that even a crappy point and shoot will offer better results than using even a good (non-SLR) film camera simply because of the control you have over things like white balance (and limited aperture and shutter control), and you're not at mercy of a poorly calibrated 30-minute developer.

And I would also definitely contest that serious landscapist would certainly shoot in the middle of the day in high contrast light, its just much harder to get results that are pleasing / desired / interesting / etc.

[Bosterson]

I still think that even a crappy point and shoot will offer better results than using even a good (non-SLR) film camera simply because of the control you have over things like white balance (and limited aperture and shutter control), and you're not at mercy of a poorly calibrated 30-minute developer.

In bright, contrasty sunlight, white balance shouldn't be an issue since film is balanced for daylight. And in mid-day light in the summer months, really all you need to do for exposure is set the camera to sunny 16 and point and shoot. I mean, this is assuming that every one of your pictures is of a subject that is in full sun, and it's mostly for argument's sake. But I would bet that given those constraints, if you had two people go take identical pictures with a generic point and shoot digital and a disposable point and shoot film camera, then get them printed straight at the lab with no corrections, the film camera would probably come out ahead since digital point and shoots tend to overexpose in bright sunlight (parodoxically) and clip highlights, etc. But this is mostly just an exercise for showing that people who are not proficient photographers are not helped by more controls or fancier equipment.

(For the record, if we are comparing "crappy" point and shoot digitals with "good" non-SLR film cameras, I don't really see the digicam besting even a consumer rangefinder like the Canon QL17, let alone a Leica M-series. But now I'm just arguing semantics. )

As for landscapists shooting in flat, mid-day light, I can't recall any photos from your Flickr that were taken any time other than early morning or late afternoon to evening.

[Sore Feet]

In bright, contrasty sunlight, white balance shouldn't be an issue since film is balanced for daylight. And in mid-day light in the summer months, really all you need to do for exposure is set the camera to sunny 16 and point and shoot. I mean, this is assuming that every one of your pictures is of a subject that is in full sun, and it's mostly for argument's sake.

If we're talking about full sun, yeah, I wouldn't debate this, but since the OP brought up the subject of waterfalls blowing out, and that's what I have the most experience with shooting on print film, I can attest that there is simply no way print film handles the variance of light and shadow, color casts rendered and resulting contrast better than digital does. In the end, its a dumb argument because anyone who cares that much about the results won't be using either medium, so semantics.

(For the record, if we are comparing "crappy" point and shoot digitals with "good" non-SLR film cameras, I don't really see the digicam besting even a consumer rangefinder like the Canon QL17, let alone a Leica M-series. But now I'm just arguing semantics. )

I should clarify, by non-SLR, I meant a higher end idiot-consumer level camera, not necessarily a rangefinder or the likes. Not sure I could give you an example because I didn't get into the hobby until digital was prevelant and my only experience with film went from disposables to a crappy $25 Ricoh point and shoot to a Kyocera (Yashica) SLR to digital.

As for landscapists shooting in flat, mid-day light, I can't recall any photos from your Flickr that were taken any time other than early morning or late afternoon to evening.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting I represented an example of someone who can shoot successfully in mid day light, but I do have a few on my Flickr Stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/ ... 784281429/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/ ... 784281429/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/ ... 784281429/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/ ... 784339537/
To be fair, the first three were taken on the same day.

Best example that comes to mind of a pro shooting in mid day light is John Hyde, and not just his wildlife stuff, he's got dozens of really awesome landscapes shot well before / after sun up or down. One of my personal favorite photographers.