RickL Loc: Vail, Az

It seems to be the thing to remove all of the detail from waterfalls. I prefer to see water detail and some action. How about water drops caught in mid air?

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

I tend to agree with you. I usually use the lowest power ND filter i have to get images of moving water. I like to see some detail of the water and show the power and energy it has.

Will

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

TheDman Loc: USA

Why do people complain about this instead of going out and showing us all how it's done?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Hey, those pictures have a certain mystique about them - makes you wonder what’s upstream - a sewage treatment plant, someone emptying a bathtub, or a washing machine, or ... ?

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Cash customers want water that resembles taffy, not real water scenes. I shot a series of photographs of water crashing into a stone jetty during a very high speed wind. People were amazed to see water as it naturally appears, not the smoothed-over versions that make it look so pathetic. Moving water fanscinates humans but lately things have evolved into water looking almost solid. In noticing photographs of the northwestern region of the USA it is obvious that running water is still water and not some flow of Howard Johnson's saltwater taffy. The rivers of that region are almost perfect for landscape photography and the water is running in the riverbed, not frozen in time as mud. Many of these photos are also over saturated and way too contrasted. Excess, excessively.

Leitz Loc: Solms

I don't care for that style either, but I'm not dumb enough to look til I'm tired of them!!

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

I totally agree. I had to judge an international photo. Contest. 99% of the water looked like tacky. Pretty sad trend. They didn't get my vote!

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

On the other hand;) our specie tend to imitate rather than create. How many images have we seen of sand dunes or a pier jutting out into the water? We have heard since the beginning that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. While that may be true it would be wise to remember that it is also the most direct route to mediocrity.

Haydon

It's all a matter of personal choices here and artistry is subjective. It's no different than a Nikon/Canon battle or a SOOC/PP feud. Respect the work of others and drive your own work to find your style.

cabunit Loc: SE Connecticut

Hear! Hear!

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

Depends on the shot to me, I don't really prefer one way over the other. I kinda like the photo to tell me if I like it or not.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I do both, then decide when I am in front of the computer which one I like better. Sometimes the "detailed" version doesn't do it for me. Sometimes an "in-between" look works best. And sometimes I just can't make up my mind. So this is how I do it for waterfalls. Surf is an entirely different story, as are huge, powerful waterfalls with tons of water coming down and crashing on the rocks.

1/80 sec

(Download)

.6 sec

(Download)

1/8 sec

(Download)

1/4 sec

(Download)

1/30

(Download)

.8 sec

(Download)

.5 sec

(Download)

.25 sec

(Download)

.8 sec for the falls, .25 sec for the foreground rushing water

(Download)

Haydon

I agree Gene. Even with the same SS, sometimes just the way the water flows can be more compelling in one image to the next. I often like to find a BALANCE between "angel hair" and motion. When I first started out, I couldn't wait to drag the shutter to much longer times than I do now.

Here's an illustration of what I call a balance from a B&W I did a while back.

(Download)

tdekany Loc: Oregon