Waterfall photography at Coal Creek Falls

The beginning of the Coal Creek Falls walk in Runanga

I don't do a lot of waterfall photography, despite having a beautiful waterfall literally 10 minutes drive (and then a half hour walk) from my front door!

Coal Creek Falls is an impressive waterfall, situated in the small township of Runanga. It's a very easy walk, on a well maintained track, although a couple of sections of the walk are slightly steep - and if it's been raining a lot some sections can be rather muddy. But solid footwear and a little up-hill huffing and puffing will see you right.

The other well-known local waterfalls - Dorothy Falls and Carew Falls - are a little further away. About a 45 minute and an hours drive away respectively. I have photographed all three of them, but Coal Creek Falls happens to be my favourite of the three.

So why don't I shoot waterfalls more often? Well, I think there's two main reasons. First, it requires very overcast conditions to get the best out of an image - and I don't tend to shoot in overcast conditions. And second, to take a really good waterfall image requires some very specific gear. Gear I don't generally have. Namely, a high grade neutral density (ND) filter (more on that later).

Backlit Fern. E-M1 with 12-40mm Pro. 1/50th @ f2.8

Perhaps, if I'm honest, there's possibly one other reason why I have struggled shooting at Coal Creek Falls. I'm scared of it.

Seven years ago (in 2012), while on a photoshoot, I fell into the water at the falls and completely destroyed my Canon 5D and 24-105mm lens (see the post here). I was completely distraught, my home insurance didn't cover the cost of a new camera, and thus began the arduous task (for me) of searching for a new camera system. So Coal Creek Falls and I don't get on all that well. Especially since the best place to photograph them is, once again, out in the creek itself. Trust me when I say, those damn rocks are slippery!

Don't get me wrong, I have taken photos at the Coal Creek Walk often. I've just never really ever taken a good photo of the waterfall itself. But this year, I plan to change all that.

So far this year (just one month into it), I've gotten up early every Saturday morning to go out and take photos. For the first two weekends I've concentrated on medium format film with my Bronica ETRS. But last weekend (as I write this), I decided to shoot with my E-M1 and go to the Falls. A quick check on a weather app suggested that conditions would be favourable (overcast), so I was hopeful of getting my best shots ever from Coal Creek.

Tree Ferns. E-M1 with 12-40mm Pro. 1/50th @ f2.8

As mentioned, it's an easy half-hour walk through native forest to get to the falls, and there's plenty of opportunity to take some great images along the track. At certain times of the year it's a popular spot for fungi photography, as well as offering numerous flora and the occasional friendly bird. I've stopped to photograph something along the way numerous times and been joined by an inquisitive robin who will hop around very close by, unperturbed by human visitors.

Forest areas can be tricky to photograph in, since the interior lighting can be quite low. But if you look for shafts of light, and can isolate subjects and shoot wide open (at f2.8 or thereabouts), then you can get away with still shooting hand-held. Not that using a tripod isn't an option on such an easy walking track. I've set up a tripod many times and there's always plenty of room for other walkers to go around you so that you're not holding up traffic. There are also one or two places along the walk where it's safe to get away from the track and scramble down to the waters edge to take some images from the creek itself.

Macro lenses come into their own in woodland locations, even if the end-goal is a more traditional landscape waterfall shot. Densely wooded areas can feel quite overwhelming, so train yourself to pick out the small details among the vastness. A single fern frond or section of bush can often tell a more compelling story than trying to capture an entire grove of trees. To be honest, I don't actually own a macro lens (I may have to rectify that in the future), but find that I can often get 'close enough' using the 40mm end of my 12-40mm zoom lens.

Leaf Litter. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/13th sec @ f2.8 (hand held). ISO 100

Zoomed right in at 40mm (80mm equivalent focal length on 35mm), and shooting wide open at f2.8, the shutter speed in the forest was still only 1/13th sec. Yes, I could have bumped up the ISO to 800 or so to increase the shutter speed - especially since I was hand-holding. But I wanted to keep the ISO as low as possible (even to the point of shooting in the extended Low ISO 100 setting on the E-M1), and I was fairly confident that the amazing ibis (in body image stabilization) of the Olympus would still give me an acceptably sharp hand-held shot at these speeds. I took three or four shots of the same image just to be sure, but I needn't of bothered - they were all sharp where I had focused (on the central leaf).

HDR Tree. E-M1 with 12-40mm f2.8. 1/25th @ f4

Another technique I tried out on the E-M1 this time around was the in-camera HDR. This is easy to access with a button press on the top left of the camera, but it's something I have rarely ever used.

Looking through the evf (electronic viewfinder) of the camera at certain scenes, I could tell that the dynamic range (range of light from dark to bright) was too great for the sensor to capture with just one image. In this scenario, taking several images with different exposures and blending them together later on in Photoshop will yield a single image that can capture all light in the scene (hence HDR - high dynamic range - photography). This has become a very popular (if not highly controversial) technique used by landscape photographers who routinely find themselves shooting scenes with a high dynamic range. There are other ways around this (using filters in certain parts of the scene to lower the contrast), but HDR photography has become so popular that it's being built right into the cameras themselves.

Traditionally, to do HDR means setting your camera on a tripod and taking several exposures of the same scene, at various exposures, so that when you 'blend' them together later on in software they all match up seamlessly. This, of course, facilitates using a tripod each and every time, and setting up the camera specifically to shoot several bracketed exposures. Quite a bit of faffing about.

With the in-camera HDR on the E-M1 (and other cameras), you can avoid all of this and hand-hold the camera as it shoots a series of exposures very quickly, and then blends them together in the camera. If you are shooting in RAW, two images will be saved on the card; the first RAW image you took, and the final camera-generated HDR Jpeg. The final result isn't perfect - the tree above still has some blocked-up shadows, and the contrast needs to be tweaked later on the computer. But the result is quite impressive given how dark the shadows were and how bright the highlights when I was capturing the scene. And all hand-held!

Fallen Log. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 1/13th @ f4.5. Polarising filter. ISO 200.

My end-goal on this excursion was to take the best image of the Coal Creek Falls that I had ever taken. To that end, I had worn my waders (gumboots here in NZ) so that I could walk into the creek for the best vantage points. This also meant that along the way, I was confident enough to go off the beaten track and explore some of the edges of the bank. The above image is one that I never would have taken if I had been wearing trainers and had stuck to the track.

Coal Creek Falls. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 Pro. 2.5secs @ f8. ISO 200. Variable ND

The above image is my second favourite image from the day. It's certainly one of the better ones I've taken of Coal Creek Falls, but on shooting it I came to two conclusions. First, it's really an evening location, and not a morning one. I had gone out on this particular morning because it was overcast conditions - ideal for minimising reflections in the water. However, by the time I got to the falls, the weather had brightened considerably, and the sun was up almost right on top of the waterfall. Damn. A polarising filter helped - but the glare from the sun was too much for it - as you can see above.

And second, a variable ND filter is practically useless, and don't buy one! They are a great idea in theory, and are basically two polarising filters sandwiched together. When you rotate them, they gradually decrease the amount of light going through the lens, and therefore lower the exposure. So good so far. But, when they are facing the light (as they were in this case), the more you rotate it the funkier it gets in terms of weird polarising shifts and blacked out areas of the image! When I rotated past around 3 seconds of filtration, the results were unusable. So it's back to the drawing board for ND filters.

Coal Creek Falls 2. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-40mm f2.8 lens. 6 secs @ f5.6. ISO 200. Variable ND filter

This is my favourite shot of the morning - and yes, my favourite shot I've ever taken of Coal Creek Falls. But it's still not great. I've had to crop in a lot to get rid of those funky polarising effects, and done some fairly major post-processing work to get the image to where I like it. It's OK, but it's not amazing! And I know I can do much better.

Next time I'll go in the evening. Next time I won't use a variable ND filter (I'll use a dedicated slotted filter with my Cokin system instead). And next time I'll be able to shoot with a polarising filter as well, to minimise the reflection on the waters surface even more. I'm close this time - but no cigar.

Landscapes with the Hoya ND400

At the end of 2017 I began to play around with filters for my landscape photography. I've always been a Cokin square filter user (both the A and P styles), and so I picked up some super cheap (i.e plastic) neutral density (ND) filters to see if this was something I could/should use on a regular basis (see this post).

An ND filter is basically a 'darkening' filter. It places a dark - hopefully 'neutral' - colour over the lens which shuts out a lot of the light reaching the sensor, giving a longer shutter speed. The amount of light blocked depends on the strength of filter used, anywhere from 2 shutter stops up to 10 stops of light! Lee Filters have what they call their 'Little and Big Stopper' - cutting out 6 or 10 stops of light respectively. Many other filter companies have followed suit, offering a variety of square ND filters, made from high quality resin up to photo grade high quality glass. These are a great choice if you have already bought into the whole square filter eco-system, but can be very expensive (over $200NZ each for the Little or Big Stopper).

With Christmas coming, I was starting to get asked by my family what I would like from Santa? 😉 I decided that I would like to get a 'serious' ND filter to replace the plastic filters I had previously been using that were degrading my image and leaving a strong colour cast (see previous post). Asking for a $200NZ+ filter was probably a bit too much for our Christmas budget, so I decided to ask instead for a screw-in ND filter that would fit both my zoom lens (that share a 52mm filter thread). I was thrilled on Christmas morning when I opened a present to find a brand new Hoya ND400 52mm filter. Yay!

I've been a huge Hoya filter fan since I started in photography. Most of my protective UV filters are Hoya's, and I have always found their quality vs price point to be excellent. The ND400 is an 8 stop light-loss filter (actually 8 & 2/3rds to be exact) - so sits between the 6 and 10 stop Lee Filters. And while many photographers prefer the square filters for their versatility, I figured that if I was choosing to use an 8-stop ND filter in conjunction with a Cokin polariser, then having the ND screwed on to the front of the lens would free the filter holder up for other filters? Yesterday (Jan 4th), I got to put this to the test.

10 Mile Creek. Straight shot with no ND filter or Polariser. f5.6 @ 1/50th sec, ISO 200

We've been blessed with an amazing summer here on the West Coast this year. Sunny, hot, bright and clear days - beautiful for sunrise and sunset, not so great in the middle of the day. Fortunately this day was bright and warm - but overcast. There was still a lot of light, but it was soft. Ideal for forest and water photography - with an ND filter. I headed out to a walk I had been wanting to get back to for a while (it's an easy walk with a few places I knew I could get use to get down to the river). This first shot is straight out of camera, using the 12-50mm EZ lens. At 1/50th the movement in the water is quite distinctive, and there is quite a lot of light reflection in the water, even on an overcast day.

10 Mile Creek. With Hoya ND400 Filter. f8, @ 5 seconds. ISO 200

 With the addition of the Hoya ND400 filter, the 1/50th shutter speed has become 5 seconds (with a decrease in the aperture to f8). Now we get that classic 'smokey water' look that happens when you slow the shutter speed down with a neutral density filter. Although the first image might be more 'true' that what our eyes see when we are at the river, the second, slower shot actually seems to capture the sense of flowing water better. The image with the ND filter portrays movement of water over time and makes it seem more 'real', even though it never actually looks like this in reality.

10 Mile Creek. With Hoya ND400 and Cokin 'A' Polariser. f8 @ 15 seconds. ISO 200

With the addition of a polariser, we now not only see more of the riverbed itself (because the polariser cuts out the reflections on the water), but the green colours 'pop' - and the shutter speed has decreased 3 more stops to 15 seconds.

10 Mile Creek 2. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ lens. F5.6 @ 1/125th. ISO 200

10 Mile Creek 2. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm lens + Cokin 'A' Polariser. f5.6 @ 1/30th. ISO 200 

10 Mile Creek 2. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm lens + Cokin Polariser & Hoya ND400. f8 @ 10 seconds. ISO 200

The three images above tell the same story. The first is straight out of camera and again is a fairly direct representation of the scene in front of the camera. The second adds a polariser, cutting out the reflections in the water and some of the glare on the rocks - making the colours more intense. While the third and final image adds the ND400, dropping the shutter speed to 10 seconds, blurring the water, and intensifying the colours even more. This 'may' have introduced a slight green cast to the image from the ND filter - or it could just be a result of the green light building up more over the long exposure? I'll have to do some more shooting with the ND in different lighting conditions to make any further conclusions on the introduction of colour casts.

10 Mile Creek 3. Cokin 'A' Polariser & Hoya ND400. f8 @ 5 seconds. ISO 200

Using the Hoya ND400 was a lot of fun, and I loved the final images it produced. The verdict is still out on whether it produces a colour cast to the images - but even if it does, I'm sure it's pretty easy to fix in Lightroom if you shoot RAW (and you should).

When used in conjunction with a polarizer on streams, riverbeds and waterfalls, the final results with the ND400 straight out of camera is like night and day! I had to do minimal work in Lightroom (some shadow and highlight recovery) because everything is pretty much achieved in-camera with the filters. It's taken me a very long time to get a decent ND filter for my landscape photography (over 30 years!) and I honestly don't know why it's taken so long? But now that I have the Hoya ND400 in my bag, beautiful long-exposure images are finally in my repertoire.   

Fun with Filters

As a serious landscape photographer you'd think that I'd have an equally serious arsenal of filters. A polarizer, LEE Big & Little Stopper (-6 and -10 stop neutral density filters), plus a good selection of hard and soft graduated ND filters - at the very least!
 

Cokin 'P' Series Holder with Graduated ND filters

Well yes, I do have a polarizer, and a 0.9 (-3 stops) soft grad - both of the Cokin 'P' variety. But that's it. And if I'm honest, I don't even use them very often either! And that's generally down to laziness. Yes folks, I admit it, I'm a fairly lazy photographer. If I can get away with it, I won't use a tripod. I won't use a filter. Heck, I will even try not to use any accessories (like remote releases). I won't even use a polarizer even when I know it would be beneficial for the final image! Why not? Because, well, it's just too much of a hassle. You've got to get it out of the bag, set up the filter holder, fiddle around with adapter rings, etc... You get the point.

Laziness aside for a moment, the 'other' issue I have with filters is the expense. Have you seen the price of the LEE Big Stopper! Over $200NZ for one filter! Buy the Big Stopper, Little Stopper and a couple of hard and soft grads, plus the filter holder and adapter ring for your lens and your looking at well over $1000NZ. And I'm not just picking on LEE. Filters from Cokin and NiSi are similarly priced. When we start talking that amount of money, I start thinking of lenses not filters.

Yet having said all of that, I've been thinking very seriously lately about using filters a lot more in my photography. Why the change of heart? Well, it has a lot to do with the landscape photography vlogs I've been watching on Youtube lately. They all - and I mean ALL - make great use of filters (as well as tripods and cable releases), and I'm beginning to think there might just be something to all this fiddling about before you taker a photo (I jest - but just a little).

So I'm turning a new leaf this year. No more lazy landscape photographer. I've already got a Polarizer and a soft grad ND, so I'm halfway there with the filters. I'm seriously considering getting a 10 stop ND filter to go with them, for long exposure photography (probably a Cokin 'Nuances' 1024), but in the meantime I've dipped my toe in the water already with a recent internet purchase.

A whole set of 'ND' filters for the Cokin P system

If you use the Cokin 'P' (for Professional - I kid you not) square filter system like I do, then you will find a lot of cheap Chinese rip-off filters for sale on the interwebs. You will, of course, get what you pay for. And for practically a tenth of the price of the 'real deal', you can't really expect much. But then again, they must do something - right? If I'm going to pay $200+ for one filter down the road, then I'm going to damn well make sure I like using it! So what better way to practice than on the cheapy stuff first. And you can't get much cheaper than $25NZ for 7 no-name ND filters that a guy was selling recently on Trademe. I snapped them up, knowing full well that they were going to be flimsy, plastic (the more expensive filters are made from either resin or glass), horribly inaccurate in terms of neutral colour, and probably worse than useless. But I also figured that if I enjoyed using them, and wished I had better ones, then I would know that any serious money spent down the track would be well worth it. That's the theory anyway.

Long exposure with ND16 + ND8 + Polarizer. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. 30secs @f11, ISO 100

Long story short - I've only had them for a couple of days, but I'm having a blast! And surprisingly, the results actually aren't half bad (with a couple of caveats). The above image is a 30 second exposure made in the middle of a very bright day, and the cheapo plastic ND filters combined with my Cokin P circular polarizer have done a decent job. And the colour cast is actually pretty minimal - especially compared to a 'Tian Ya' ND filter I also have which has a horrible brown sepia cast to it.

Cobden Beach at Midday. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 EZ. 1/250th @ f11, ISO 100. No filter

Above is the 'control' image - the shot of the beach with no filter. This gave a reference point for how the colours should look once I started adding filters.

With Polarizer. 1/60th @f11. ISO 100

Simply adding the Cokin circular polarizer improves the image dramatically. It also has the added benefit of slowing the shutter speed by 2 stops.

With ND16 (-4 stops). 1.6secs @f11, ISO 100

Adding the ND16 neutral density filter has again slowed  the shutter down, now to the point of blurring some of the movement in the waves. In terms of a colour cast, it's introduced a very slight magenta tint to the white clouds, but overall not too bad.

With ND16 + Cokin 0.9 (-3stop) soft ND Graduate. 1.3 secs @f11. ISO 100

Adding the Cokin 3 Stop soft grad has helped to lower the density in the highlights, especially in the clouds (obviously) - but hasn't effected the overall shutter speed too drastically. Again,colours are looking pretty good.

ND16 + ND8 + Polarizer. 30secs @f11, ISO 100

Remember that caveat I mentioned earlier. Well, here it is in all its glory! That's some pretty serious flare spots. And they were present on quite a few of the images I took using the plastic ND filters. A lot - but not all. This was a very extreme torture test, in very bright conditions, at the time of day that I wouldn't normally be shooting at. So the nasty flare stuff doesn't really surprise me at all. Also, on closer inspection, lots of tiny bits of fluff and lint had adhered themselves to the plastic filters which probably didn't help matters.

Same as above, yet without the strong sun flares....

A quick clean, another shot done with the same settings - and viola, a different result. To be honest, I did clone out one lone flare spot in the sky, and a few are creeping into the top of the frame, but it's nowhere near as bad as the previous shot - with a simple clean!

So did I have fun with my new plastic ND filters? You betcha! Will I use them again? You betcha - can't wait. Except next time I won't try them under such torturous conditions. This lazy photographer may be turning a new leaf. Watch this space...