Some photos of Water effects in a bowl

[nextelbuddy]

Im sure many have seen these types of pictures before but this was my first attempt at it.

these were resized smaller than i would like but here we go.

setup
D3000
lens used - 18-55 f3.5 kit lens
tri pod
Shutter speed - 1/800th/sec
Aperture: f/9.0
4 lamps with 100w daylight 6500k energy saving bulbs from Lowes
no flash

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/4002324670_d386f4597f.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/4001562967_e7aaa233d6.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/4001563095_8d69a7e403.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4002325394_d092c35f78.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/4001563555_76dd4a05f5.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/4001563699_1f24ef8d61.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/4001563857_049744e5e4.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2524/4002326444_157cb4cf1a.jpg

[TRDwasiq]

:goodjob::goodjob: +6

[james]

there's a reason strobes are used for this instead of constant tungsten. but you got the effect right in your second shot.

[u8myore0]

beautiful!!!

[nextelbuddy]

there's a reason strobes are used for this instead of constant tungsten. but you got the effect right in your second shot.

yea well i dont have the money right now for a decent strobe kit and my D3000 doesnt have an internal remote commander to trigger an SB600 or 800/900 off the body so an external flash is out of the question for me money wise now as well.

i assume you mean because you can not see the bulb in the 2nd photo due to the ripple effect

i had to have the bulbs so close because i was running a f9 smaller aperature for mroe detail instead of f3.5 that would have allowed me to have the bulbs further away not causing a reflection

a strobe kit would be nice and i have my eyes on picking up a set soon but for now i was bored and stuck inside sunday so i figured what the hell lol

[james]

yea well i dont have the money right now for a decent strobe kit and my D3000 doesnt have an internal remote commander to trigger an SB600 or 800/900 off the body so an external flash is out of the question for me money wise now as well.

i assume you mean because you can not see the bulb in the 2nd photo due to the ripple effect

i had to have the bulbs so close because i was running a f9 smaller aperature for mroe detail instead of f3.5 that would have allowed me to have the bulbs further away not causing a reflection

a strobe kit would be nice and i have my eyes on picking up a set soon but for now i was bored and stuck inside sunday so i figured what the hell lol

well i just mean that to obtain the effect of your second shot - with the bit of water above the surface - that to do this you would want a high speed strobe or flash to do that, in conjunction with a triggering device like the bmumford time machine or other.

[goi_ek]

kewl

[Mr. Clean]

all you gotta do is flip up your built-in flash. these were with my cheapo Sony A100 with the flash up and holding it.

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198520

(notice the date, this is certainly not my best work... just showing you for technique)

if you're shooting past 1/250 with flash you don't need a tripod unless you're michael j fox.

[bdydrpdmazda]

cool pix bro

[james]

cool pix bro

cool post bro.

also, in the other thread: cool post, bro!

[bloodline]

wow awesome photos man..that looks mad kool

[blondebabe36]

:goodjob: nice pics!