Tired of angel hair waterfalls
Jul 1, 2017 09:38:39 #
Haydon wrote:
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.
Here's an illustration of what I call a balance from a B&W I did a while back.
I agree with Gene and Hayden. Somewhere in between and it varies with the shot. I do like when the water is just a bit blurred/soft to contrast with the texture of rocks and foliage.
Jul 1, 2017 09:42:04 #
AzPicLady wrote:
I recall some time back losing out on first place in an art show because of how I photographed the water. I "stopped" it. The judge wanted it to look like milk. When I talked to him, he asked me why I shot it as I did. I replied that I was shooting water, not milk. He didn't like my answer! Oh well. I will be true to myself.
And so went first prize - you won the battle but lost the war! :) Some people feel strong about overprocessed HDR or out of focus abstract or insisting on everything dead center. It does not mean the composition will be appreciated.
Jul 1, 2017 09:42:59 #
RickL wrote:
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?
Right on. REJ.
Jul 1, 2017 09:52:05 #
repleo wrote:
There is an epoxy material sold to scene makers {railroad modelers, for example} to evoke thoughts of water. Thank you for explaining to me why a photographer would substitute that stuff for living, vibrant water.A slower shutter speed or stack could show the full trajectory and movement of the spurt.
Blur is a well established method of conveying movement.
Blur is a well established method of conveying movement.
Jul 1, 2017 09:57:10 #
John Howard wrote:
I agree with Gene and Hayden. Somewhere in between and it varies with the shot. I do like when the water is just a bit blurred/soft to contrast with the texture of rocks and foliage.
=============
I too find the "mix" of both "Spray" and "Steamy" motion of the water. So - The Mix of Both - When I capture water, and I wish to show a flowing motion, I make a H.D.R.
However - This is what I do and like. Others will, and should, have their own opinion on what they wish to do with their art.
Jul 1, 2017 10:11:53 #
RickL wrote:
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?
Not sure if my image posted yesterday in the 'Long Exposure' forum of Looking Glass Falls prompted your comment, perhaps not, but it is the only one posted recently showing motion in the water. The most immediate thought that comes to mind is that it is cool to comment on and like (or dislike) any style of image production, regardless. Having said that, I'm wondering if you have ever tried to produce a waterfall (or any kind of water) showing motion?
I like all sorts of styles of image production including showing motion in water because it's a technical/creative challenge to try and do it well. It's pretty easy to just throw an ND filter on a lens and shoot a long exposure image, but to do that AND find and photograph an exciting venue successfully is not that easy. I constantly challenge myself to try different shooting styles/techniques, to shoot things I haven't photographed, to get outside my comfort zone and once in a while, I actually find I like something a bunch that I haven't done before. I think you might find that if you produced an interesting image showing motion in water, you might change your mind because it's fun and satisfying.
Most of my landscape images are at least 3 brackets and sometimes 5 or more depending on the dynamic range of the scene. Usually, the first (or fastest) shutter speed in the bracket does show a bit of stop motion as evidenced by the following images. The first is the original of course and the second is at 1/20th of a sec. When I compare the 2, the first wins for me, but maybe not for you. Either way is just fine as many have indicated.
Here's the point and it's a bit like the old jpeg vs raw argument.... If it's new to me and/or it seems there is some benefit or challenge, then I need to try it to see what all the hype is about! Some folks are intimidated by things they don't understand or have never tried and so sometimes react negatively to them. I see something I've not done before and the first thing I ask myself is, 'can I do that'? If the answer is no, not right now, then I try to educate myself about what is necessary and proceed to attack it with a vengeance! (Sometimes not very successfully) It's called the learning/exploration process and is what keeps me fascinated and intrigued with photography. There is a constant stream of new things to try to understand and the joy is the learning process. If you are passionate about your photography, it is never ending!
By the way, I do like water drops in midair and shoot them often. Just another style to try and master..... See the last image..... ;)
Jul 1, 2017 10:15:52 #
James R wrote:
=============
I too find the "mix" of both "Spray" and "Steamy" motion of the water. So - The Mix of Both - When I capture water, and I wish to show a flowing motion, I make a H.D.R.
However - This is what I do and like. Others will, and should, have their own opinion on what they wish to do with their art.
I too find the "mix" of both "Spray" and "Steamy" motion of the water. So - The Mix of Both - When I capture water, and I wish to show a flowing motion, I make a H.D.R.
However - This is what I do and like. Others will, and should, have their own opinion on what they wish to do with their art.
I like your set. You have a nice place to photograph. :-)
Jul 1, 2017 10:27:16 #
Jul 1, 2017 10:27:37 #
James R wrote:
=============
I too find the "mix" of both "Spray" and "Steamy" motion of the water. So - The Mix of Both - When I capture water, and I wish to show a flowing motion, I make a H.D.R.
However - This is what I do and like. Others will, and should, have their own opinion on what they wish to do with their art.
I too find the "mix" of both "Spray" and "Steamy" motion of the water. So - The Mix of Both - When I capture water, and I wish to show a flowing motion, I make a H.D.R.
However - This is what I do and like. Others will, and should, have their own opinion on what they wish to do with their art.
Jul 1, 2017 10:37:15 #
Gene51 wrote:
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.
Nice educational series. I have a similar set I show my students. I just shot a waterfall and there was so much water moving that even a 1/4000 of a second is still blurred. Like you, I shoot waterfalls from 30sec to as short as 1/4000. You just never know what shutter speed will look good until you shoot it. Yes, ocean waves are different too. Happy shooting
Jul 1, 2017 10:39:03 #
repleo wrote:
Nice shots Gene. I like the 'angel hair' ones the best.
Thanks! I am partial to "angel hair" but don't like the 5 sec exposure "cotton candy" look. But there are days, like after a week of rain when small trickles over the rocks become thunderous raging cascades that the power is best captured with shorter exposures. I like to see movement as well as detail in those.
Kinda like these:
Jul 1, 2017 10:42:42 #
there are many ways to render water in a photograph and by saying you only like crisp droplets only reveals the limitations you place on your own art. I like both but probably favor the implied motion of streaking water, especially as a textural contrast to some stationary rocks or other strong subject matter. Live and let live.
BTW, if you have ever shot a B&W image, you must realize that is about as "unrealistic" a way to render a world filled with color, unless your are fully colorblind. Similarly, our modern sensors are rectangular...have you ever seen the world with four corners defining our visual field of view? I have not. Something to ponder.
BTW, if you have ever shot a B&W image, you must realize that is about as "unrealistic" a way to render a world filled with color, unless your are fully colorblind. Similarly, our modern sensors are rectangular...have you ever seen the world with four corners defining our visual field of view? I have not. Something to ponder.
Jul 1, 2017 10:51:37 #
Jerry Coupe
Loc: Kent, WA
Great examples that add to the discussion. Fast shutter speeds yield fine detail usually. Slower shutter speeds add a degree of creativity or interpretation. Neither is right or wrong. Both are part of our artistic interpretations of the scene and the moment in time.
Jul 1, 2017 11:02:32 #
Many times I do both but many times also when I show my high shutter speed shot I am asked why I did not slow it down. Doing the "slow waterfall shot" seems to be the rule.
I guess the solution here is to shoot both and keep the one we like most...or both.
I guess the solution here is to shoot both and keep the one we like most...or both.
Jul 1, 2017 11:15:33 #
AzPicLady wrote:
I recall some time back losing out on first place in an art show because of how I photographed the water. I "stopped" it. The judge wanted it to look like milk. When I talked to him, he asked me why I shot it as I did. I replied that I was shooting water, not milk. He didn't like my answer! Oh well. I will be true to myself.
If I judged your photos all milk would not have passed
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.