Unnatural water: I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

gvarner wrote:

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

Neither one excludes the other. It all depends on what the individual photographer wants to say.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

Violameister wrote:

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

I think it's become popular because you can't capture the moving water, as your eyes see it, with a camera. The two choices are to shoot high speed and make the water stand still, or shoot longer exposures to make the water blur. I think many photographers choose the second option because it leaves the actual scene to the viewer's imagination. A happy medium might be to shoot at a shutter speed slow enough to get a very sight blur to show motion without creating a total, unnatural looking blur to the water. But, even then, it won't look the same as the way you actually see it with your eyes.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

lowkick wrote:

I think it's become popular because you can't capt... (show quote)

I agree. While it's the right of the photographer, I too have grown tired of these creamy pics. Consequently,on my next endeavors I will try to strike some sort of happy medium. Great hobby that stimulates thought!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Well back in the time of film I don't remember much to do about a filter known as a ND one. I was shown how to it with a slow shutter speed and a wider f-stop as needed on the available light. Now I must confess I did use a star filter on some waterfalls when the light was just right for look of sparkle now that was fun to do.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Violameister wrote:

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

Back to the natural is my input. To much of the unnatural is not a good thing and does not let us connect with reality. Reality in itself is beautiful. But then again, a photo taken at 1/1000 does not do the picture justice and leaves the image flat. The photo become static without imagination, inspiration and awe. If a photo is taken of a grain field taken under and intense windstorm and the taken at 1/1000 of a second everything is lost. There is no beauty, just dull.

Huey Driver Loc: Texas

gvarner wrote:

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

:thumbup: :thumbup: Agree nothing about those pics with silky water looks natural to me either

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I agree, silky looking water in a photograph is becoming old. When I take a photo of a particular scene, I want it to look like as my eyes see it at that particular moment.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

cjkorb wrote:

I agree, silky looking water in a photograph is becoming old. When I take a photo of a particular scene, I want it to look like as my eyes see it at that particular moment.

I whole heartedly agree but adding one little bit of info., My eyes do not see static either they do see movement at least a little so there lie the problem. That is therefore, or should be, our quest. To make the photo interesting and give it some sort of beauty.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Violameister wrote:

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

Because we cannot capture how running water looks in a still photo, we may instead capture how we experience it?

I experience different running water different ways and can't fully explain why I choose to shoot some slow and smooth but others with fast shutters to stop the movement. I always have an initial reaction one way or the other for any running water I come upon and decide to photograph. I see appealing images with both approaches. But neither way looks like the real thing, it can't.

DerBiermeister Loc: North of Richmond VA

cjkorb wrote:

I agree, silky looking water in a photograph is becoming old. When I take a photo of a particular scene, I want it to look like as my eyes see it at that particular moment.

I concur. And having spent a good part of my life on the water, I always try to capture the "meanness" of how water can look when the wind pipes up. You get around 20 knots of heavy air, and the white caps are ferocious, and the water turns much darker. To this day, I have never seen a photograph that can capture the true image that the eyes see. A photograph always makes it look subdued.

Another favorite camera place is Niagara Falls. I don't like milky images. I want to capture on film as close to what my eyes see as I can. The picture below is an example of that. It was taken at Niagara at one of the smaller falls. Please ... NO critique necessary. I already can spot about a dozen things wrong with this pic. It was shot along time ago in AUTO with a P&S before I knew anything about good photography. I post it here only trying to demonstrate what kind of water I want to capture. This photo comes close to what my eyes actually saw. I certainly would not go for the milky type water in this venue.

(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

DerBiermeister wrote:

I concur. And having spent a good part of my life... (show quote)

Yes!

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

DerBiermeister wrote:

I concur. And having spent a good part of my life... (show quote)

Keep in mind that sometimes a photographer might want to make their picture appear restful and idyllic rather than portray the real force of the water. And sometimes, especially with ocean waves, a long exposure can create an ethereal kind of feel to a photo. It all depends on what the photographer is trying to achieve. The important thing is to know the possibilities and how to achieve them.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

gvarner wrote:

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

Let's just say it is over done by too many people and the results are less than enticing. This goes with many other 'styles' of photography.