One of the things I've tried over the past few weeks is to capture a water splash frozen, sharp and in focus. I'd tried this last year and got some OK results, but they weren't fantastic and it was very hit and miss.

This time I wanted to be sure I understood the principles, and thanks to a few people I think I'm getting there, and I thought I'd share.

First some simple things to remember.

• Water is transparent. (No shit Sherlock...). No, this is really important and I didn't consider it with my first attempts. I was more concerned with a clean splash and it was only when I reviewed them that I realised the cloth under the water wasn't particularly photogenic
• Water is reflective.  (again, with the Sherlock remark). Seriously, take care of the background lights (and remember to wear some clothes if you think you'll be in the reflection)
• Water is wet. (OK, but still....). Make sure you don't have anything valuable sitting where it will get wet. If you're fiddling with positioning of lights and bowls and backgrounds, make sure your camera isn't around your neck and dangling in the water. It's obvious, but I found my camera remote (my new one) in a puddle after one session

And if you ever needed proof that water was transparent, the splash is lost in a poorly conceived background choice.

OK, here's what you'll need.

1. A clear bowl or some other water receptacle (preferably with water in it) - I used a shallow casserole dish
2. Something to go under the bowl if it's transparent - I used place mats, card of different colours, paper and a few other things while playing
3. Something to drip the water into the bowl - I used a syringe, but have read about people using plastic bags with pin holes, pipettes, basically anything that allows you to control the flow of water at drip level
4. Light
5. An empty memory card (you will take a lot of pictures)
6. Tripod
7. Camera remote (optional)

The first three are pretty straightforward and what you use is entirely up to you. Different containers and colours will have huge impacts on the final picture and you really should consider the background as it will make or break the image.

Light is important. Remember, the aim is to catch a splash. To freeze it in motion you'll need to use a pretty fast shutter speed and unless you happen to be shooting outdoors on a nice day, you're already climbing a lighting mountain. You have two options, either a fixed constant light source or a good flash gun. I'm not going to try and tell you to use one over the other, but remember a typical flash will have a maximum synchronisation speed of about 1/200 and that might limit you somewhat.

Right, so assuming you've all the bits above, you need to do the following...

1. Position your background on a solid stable location
2. Place the water (in the bowl) on top of the background and make sure there are no specs of dirt in it
3. Set up the camera on the tripod pointing at the water
4. Make sure your camera is in manual focus mode
5. Use the end of your dropper (or something thin like a pen) to pre-focus on the water roughly where your drop will hit
6. Try to get as narrow an aperture* as you can get away with without reducing the shutter speed too far. I found 1/200 was the absolute slowest I could get a sharp(ish) image at. (your mileage may vary)
7. Finalise the settings on the camera, set up your lighting solution (if you're using a flash a few test shots to make sure you have a decent exposure wouldn't go amiss). Put the camera on continuous/burst mode
8. Holding the dropper above the water, aim for your chosen spot
9. Fire the camera as you squeeze water droplets out of the dropper. I started by using the remote, but found it was as easy to just use one hand for the dropper and the other for the camera button
10. Refill, repeat until the card is full

*(Why the narrow aperture? Well, the likelihood of you hitting the right spot with every drop is slim. With a narrow aperture you get a bigger depth of field so are more likely to get a good sharp drop in another region of your picture, allowing you come latitude for post process cropping.)

It takes some patience, and a lot of trial and error. But hopefully you'll get a few decent splashes captured.

(This is also a decent example of the need for a small aperture as the splash is way off centre. The high spot in the splash is from the flash gun - and that was with a diffuser on it!)

Now I've managed it with water, I'm planning on trying it with milk and a few other liquids. I'm also going to give it a god with a different lighting setup - possibly off camera to see how that impacts it.

Hopefully this has been of some use. There are a few of these guides on the web. The best I found was on Caz Photo.

Also, if you want a better understanding of why flashguns have a maximum synchronisation speed, you'd be well advised to read Paulo's explanation.

OK, I've just sent the chosen pictures to the printer for the water competition. I'm not hugely enamoured with some of them and there of my original list of planned pictures, I think I managed 1 or maybe 2.

I'm not going to list them just yet. I want to see the printed articles and collect my thoughts on the subject before getting into it again.

So in the meantime...

Here's another "Dam View" from my day in the Mournes.

(f/8, 1/125sec,  22mm, ISO-200, 27/09/08)

One of the biggest problems I face when shooting freehand is getting horizons level. It's even harder when nature conspires to put mountains in your way (and then doesn't even make them flat). It's certainly one of the times I love the capacity of digital for post processing, turning a simple mistake into an acceptible picture.

It's different when shooting on a tripod. For the sake of a few pounds, it's worth investing in a camera spirit level. Whilst loads of tripods come with a level, it's pointless if your head allows any sort of tilt. And besides, when people see it, they'll get a laugh out of it if nothing else.

OK, so a week or so ago I posted the picture of the water drops on the sepia coloured rose. I've kind of decided not to use that picture for the water round of the competition. (Not because I don't like it, more because it's a rose bud with water rather than water on a rose bud).

... Anyhow, I was playing with the picture in Photoshop and decided to raise the exposure of the right side before removing the highlights from the water droplets to see what effect it had on the picture. It's left me in a dilemma about which I prefer.

So, which is better?

Thanks to some advice from Paulo, I was able to re-examine how I was taking some of the water shots. Whilst I'm not convinced I'm up to this standard yet, I did repeat the water droplet experiment using some of the tips from his blog.

Suffice to say this is the first of lots of much improved drop shots that I got. More will follow.

It's hard to imagine that less than 2 weeks ago I was wandering around a mountain in a pair of shorts...

(f/11, 1/125sec, 70mm, ISO-400, 27/09/08)

You'd think with a water theme competition coming up I'd be happy about the rain. You'd be quite wrong.

Can you imagine the feeling of dread as the lookout on the Titanic yelled those words?

Well, that was probably a lot more intense than the dread I felt as I popped open the boxes with my latest attempt at clear ice cubes.

However, like the Titanic, it seems I too was doomed to failure.

This time I'd tried to use de-ionised water. It was the closest to purified I could find (if anyone knows where I can get some, please tell me!). The ice was clearer, but still not great. I guess for round three I'll boil the bugger and see what happens.

Anyway, after lots of fruitless cursing at it I smashed it up so it would melt faster and not lie in the sink with an accusatory glare all night. As I looked at the pieces, I decided to have a bit of a play.

(f/3.5, 1/250sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 06/10/2008)

OK, this has been toned quite heavily to give it that odd blue glow. It's not great. In fact it reminds me of the turkey giblets quote from last year. But since I share the good and the bad, I thought I'd show you my lack of progress with ice.

I think I'm beginning to appreciate the club competition on a new level now. Never really having to work to an agenda before, I've always just taken pictures of things I like or things I thought might look nice. If I got a picture out of it, that was great. If I didn't, it was no big loss, like buses there'd be two just round the corner.

However, a subject as simple or as varied as "water" forces you into looking for shots which fulfil a brief, the sense of the clock ticking in the background is ever present. It took until today before I got past the deadline doom of the competition and realised that I wasn't actually that bothered about winning or losing or even just doing OK. I was in it for fun. Even if nobody liked my stuff (and believe me, the last photo I showed them got hammered), I was doing this to try and improve.

Funnily, right around the time I had that thought, I took the picture of the rose (see previous post) and the picture below.

In all honesty, I don't know if they'll be permitted in a competition where the theme is "water", but I like them and that's pretty much all that matters.

(f/5.6, 1/1000sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 05/10/08)

(f/5.6, 1/2500sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 05/10/2008)

I've no idea if this will be allowed as an entry for the "Water" round of the competition, but it's grown on me over the course of the day so it may well get an outing regardless. Maybe the top right is a little dark, but I'm not sure.

Sometimes it's a blessing that you can enter multiple prints.

This started of life as a yellow rose, but I just really like the sepia toning on it. It kills off the yellow in the flower and lets the water drops stand out a little more. And no, before you ask, these are natural water drops!

I've noticed what WingedMonkey seems to concentrate on macro flower shots in a lot of his updates and whilst I'm still a long way from some of his stuff, I am starting to see the attraction as you can end up with some lovely pictures.

(f/8, 1/1000sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 05/10/08)

I've kind of fallen into flower mode because of that water challenge. "Raindrops on roses" and all that... I'm still just shooting flowers in available light and I wonder what difference it would make if I was to start using reflections. Honestly, light is getting ever higher on my list of things to play around with. Maybe one day...

Nothing to say about this really. I was messing with the camera and liked the colour on a Friday night was all...

(f/2.8, 1/100sec, 100mm, ISO-400, 3/10/08)

Between mountains and models, the water project had taken a little bit of a back seat the last few days, but I got back onto it again tonight and after an hour of shooting, I'm growing to hate it.

I decided to move away from the ice idea for a while and try simple things like water filling a glass. I also decided to try and use a flash to light it as I wanted something a little 'ethereal' as a result.

Well, after an hour, this is the best I've got.

(f/4, 1/200sec, 100mm, ISO-200, 2/10/08)

It's still blurred, or at least not sharp enough for what I wanted.

I think this is probably down to the shutter speed of 1/200 (which is the fastest sync speed for my flash). I did try one at a faster shutter speed with the flash on manual, but it blew everything out and I needed to pack up.

So, according to my calendar I have 2 and a bit weeks to shoot something decent related to water and get it printed. I'm not panicking yet, but I'd getting a little frustrated.

Ah well, at least I have the weekend to try a few things and go back to my ice experiments!