Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography: I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like motion blur in water photography. Iv'e tried to appreciate the effect, but to me it...

stansoper Loc: Topeka, KS

I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like motion blur in water photography. Iv'e tried to appreciate the effect, but to me it just doesn't make any sense and I don't appreciate or like the result. Other's may and good for them. But it's not for me. I'm very visual and the effect just doesn't work for me. I realize that most photographers do not share my opinion, but I wonder how many (if any) share my opinion.

I look forward to your comments.

Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

I agree 100% with your assessment.

Like you, I realize that I am in the minority on this subject - so what?

I suspect that the reason that many photographers do the things that they do is not because it improves the photo but because they can.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

stansoper wrote:

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

Are you sure it is the photographers who are responsible for this? I shoot scenes involving moving water in both "real" time and in"taffy" time. I have found people viewing these photographs do not respond as favorably to the "real" time shots as they do the "taffy" time shots of the same image. For whom are you shooting? Please yourself or please others? Who pays the bills? Tough question you pose.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It depends on the extent of blurring for me. I don't care for really burred water.

CO

I use my neutral density filters to get the smoothed out water effect but to a mild degree. I like the water to retain its character so I use shutters speeds around 1/8 or 1/15 second. This is how I like to photograph flowing water. The exposure time was 1/10 second.

(Download)

Jayman

On the other side of the coin, when was the last time you saw water frozen in mid air, I prefer, like any thing in motion, to show the motion. Take a race car speeding around a race track, freeze it in time and it might as well be parked. A jogger with his feet blurred is more interesting than frozen in mid stride. Personal opinion I guess.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

stansoper wrote:

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

I agree completely. For surreal or "artistic" purposes, it may be acceptable, but I prefer realism.

Haydon

I think one needs to stay open. Art doesn't have to be exclusive to accurate representation. If realism is considered the only venue, then all the impressionists of years past using a brush would be unrecognized. Does that mean b&w photography is unacceptable? Does that also mean shallow DOF by wide open apertures unworthy because our eyes don't see it that way? Closing yourself to other artistic impressions narrows you to a myopic world.

stansoper Loc: Topeka, KS

davidrb wrote:

Are you sure it is the photographers who are responsible for this? I shoot scenes involving moving water in both "real" time and in"taffy" time. I have found people viewing these photographs do not respond as favorably to the "real" time shots as they do the "taffy" time shots of the same image. For whom are you shooting? Please yourself or please others? Who pays the bills? Tough question you pose.

Thanks for the input. You make a good point. If I was a professional photographer, I would have to consider the market and what sells, but I shoot for myself so that's not a factor.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CO wrote:

I use my neutral density filters to get the smoothed out water effect but to a mild degree. I like the water to retain its character so I use shutters speeds around 1/8 or 1/15 second. This is how I like to photograph flowing water. The exposure time was 1/10 second.

Nice image.

stansoper Loc: Topeka, KS

Haydon wrote:

I think one needs to stay open. Art doesn't have to be exclusive to accurate representation. If realism is considered the only venue, then all the impressionists of yesteryears using a brush would be unrecognized. Closing yourself to other artistic impressions narrows you to a myopic world.

Good point. Maybe that's why I'm always lost when I go to a Modern Art Museum.

I guess I'm just a realist.

stansoper Loc: Topeka, KS

CO wrote:

I use my neutral density filters to get the smoothed out water effect but to a mild degree. I like the water to retain its character so I use shutters speeds around 1/8 or 1/15 second. This is how I like to photograph flowing water. The exposure time was 1/10 second.

I really like this shot. There just might be a middle ground. I'm going to try your technique. Thanks.

Jim Bob

stansoper wrote:

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

Hey, no one can tell you what to like and dislike. And when they try tell them to kiss your...

tramsey Loc: Texas

I don't like milky water, I like CO shot, to me that's perfect.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

stansoper wrote:

Good point. Maybe that's why I'm always lost when I go to a Modern Art Museum.

I guess I'm just a realist.

I suppose I am also.