Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography (Page 9): The idea that made you ask the question. We should stop, we're wasting form space.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TheDman wrote:

Gave me what idea? I'm asking you a question.

The idea that made you ask the question.
We should stop, we're wasting form space.

TheDman Loc: USA

Longshadow wrote:

The idea that made you ask the question.

You're not making any sense. If someone asks you what 10 x 10 is, do you reply "what gave you that idea?". You seem to be ducking the question.

TheDman Loc: USA

tdekany wrote:

Sorry friend, if you make a claim that our eyes don't see water that way, to me that is the same as shallow depth of field or black and white shots/prints. We see in color and everything in focus. That is apple to apple

Art is subjective. You can't reject some and take advantage of another just because of what YOU like. It is ok to not like something, but to say it is wrong IS wrong.

Not only that, but we see with two 'cameras', so our bokeh is essentially a double image. Just hold your finger up to your nose and try to get a camera to mimic that. :)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TheDman wrote:

Gave me what idea? I'm asking you a question.

I answered it.
(We're done.)

TheDman Loc: USA

Longshadow wrote:

I answered it.
(We're done.)

No, you didn't. You're running.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Longshadow - You need to see an Eye doctor. Everything should be in focus.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

TheDman wrote:

Not only that, but we see with two 'cameras', so our bokeh is essentially a double image. Just hold your finger up to your nose and try to get a camera to mimic that. :)

tnturk Loc: Gallatin Tennessee

I usually shoot both for this reason. How many times have you shot something you "think" completely just in time to get home thinking what I could of done. Or in post you may see something different.

boringoldphotog Loc: Lebanon, OR

I'm so happy to find someone who feels like I do! I've felt this way all my life (going on 83 as of now). Unfortunately, as I've also recognized that most photographers don't share my (our!) view, I've therefore shot virtually no streams and waterfalls - shame on me for capitulating to "custom". If you've exercised your preference, would love to see some of your pictures. THANK YOU for bringing this up - I'll be interested to see how many others are like-minded.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Likewise, freeze framing a water fall, or moving water, isn't quite accurate either. We don't see a waterfall in freeze frame when we view it. We don't visually follow a particle of water from start to finish. Slow shutter speeds render the water more, or less, as we comprehend it, as the mind interprets the visual record.
--Bob

stansoper wrote:

I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

rmalarz wrote:

Likewise, freeze framing a water fall, or moving water, isn't quite accurate either. We don't see a waterfall in freeze frame when we view it. We don't visually follow a particle of water from start to finish. Slow shutter speeds render the water more, or less, as we comprehend it, as the mind interprets the visual record.
--Bob

Agree Bob. It may be that some of my examples are over done and too long an exposure so the water looks misty more than some would appreciate. Maybe just long enough to show the blur is a better approach. As long as this thread is, it is at least giving me some things to think about and experiment with.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Honestly, you're entitled to your opinion and you've generated a lot of response. Me? I sometimes shoot my water fast; sometime I shoot it slow. It depends on how I "see" the scene and the feeling I wish to communicate. I'm glad I'm not locked in one way or another because I have the freedom to experiment, to express myself, to do what I want.

All that being said, if you ever take a cityscape during the blue hour or at night, you will have to blur the water. One night I photographed the Hartford skyline at night and during the blue hour. The Connecticut River had a high chop on it. After I downloaded the photos, the River looked calm and serene, with perfect reflections of the city in it. Ahh, the joy of not being locked into preconceived ideas!

CraigZ58 Loc: McNeal, AZ, & Newport, OR

Both photos are wonderful examples of two different techniques. I can feel the ocean in both of them.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

photoman022 wrote:

Honestly, you're entitled to your opinion and you'... (show quote)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rmalarz wrote:

Likewise, freeze framing a water fall, or moving water, isn't quite accurate either. We don't see a waterfall in freeze frame when we view it. We don't visually follow a particle of water from start to finish. Slow shutter speeds render the water more, or less, as we comprehend it, as the mind interprets the visual record.
--Bob

I see flowing water as a stream of still images, each in sharp focus. Water spray is seen as individual droplets soaring into the air. Sea foam has roiling texture. Breaking waves are sharp curls. (I'm 200 yards from the Atlantic Ocean as I type this.)

I've never seen water look like Elmer's Glue-all. But if anyone else has, more power to ya.