Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography (Page 2): It can be easily overdone, but a little blur can be a good thing. For up close water movement I generally use a shutter of...

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

stansoper wrote:

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

It can be easily overdone, but a little blur can be a good thing. For up close water movement I generally use a shutter of 1.5 to 1/4 second, depending on how fast the water is moving, and if there is spray present. Some photographers will use 5 second or longer exposures which I think leads to the "cotton candy" look which I don't care for. Of course, with increasing distance that 1.5 to 1/4 sec can easily become 8-2 secs for the same effect.

anotherview Loc: California

Deliberately blurring water in a photograph takes away the character of the water. It then looks like ground fog. Thus, the blurring effect offends my visual sense. Just my 2 cents.

stansoper wrote:

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

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

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 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.

You are quite right that one needs to keep ones mind open to alternative approaches to are. And one can even respect artists without liking their works. I do not like Picassos work, but I admire the person. I suppose too many people (definitely myself) are too quick to use the term "don't like" when they actually mean "I prefer Method A to Methods B & C). We must be willing to take the time to contemplate the differences before we come to a conclusion. And our opinions are often contextual. In this matter, however, I can honestly say that I have made a diligent attempt to appreciate images of flowing or cascading water at slower shutter speeds, and, with a few exceptions, prefer the faster shutter speeds.

anotherview Loc: California

Professional photographers like money shots. If blurred water sells, then they will shoot water blurred.

TheDman Loc: USA

stansoper wrote:

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

Why don't you show us what kind of waterfall photos you like?

illininitt

I like the blurry/soft shots of streams/waterfalls. BUT....not if it can only be done with special settings or tripod. If I could just put a filter on the camera....and get those results on auto....I'd do it. Life is too short for settings. Put the micro-wave popcorn in the micro-wave....hit popcorn...take it out when it stops. Or....set it for 5 minutes....take it out when it stops popping! Simple!

illininitt

How many 2017 cars come in manual these days? God made Auto for a reason.... Maybe manual would save gas....but only .2% care.

btbg

I blur water because I like it. I also blur water because it sells. I have yet to sell a photo with a waterfall completely stopped so that every water drop shows, and I doubt if I ever will.

If things change and that sells, then I will also change what I shoot, until then blurred it is.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I must admit, the very first time I encountered a long exposure blurry water photograph, many years ago, I found it intriguing. But the novelty soon wore off. Now it has become a tired gimmick. There are many things which would make an interesting image of moving objects under long exposure. However, blurry waterfalls, flowing rivers and sea shores - that theme has been done to death. I do appreciate special effects photography, but only if it offers some sense of uniqueness and originality.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

BHC wrote:

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

Everybody's reality is different. Motion blur or frozen in time, it's all on a spectrum....

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

rook2c4 wrote:

I must admit, the very first time I encountered a long exposure blurry water photograph, many years ago, I found it intriguing. But the novelty soon wore off. Now it has become a tired gimmick. There are many things which would make an interesting image of moving objects under long exposure. However, blurry waterfalls, flowing rivers and sea shores - that theme has been done to death. I do appreciate special effects photography, but only if it offers some sense of uniqueness and originality.

I think you have an excellent point. Blurry water is a fad, a fad that still sells and that some people like. I call it a fad because I see it less frequently as time goes by. In the late 90's and early 2000's, DC control lenses were (for yet another time - the practice goes back to the 30's) popularized, but this time because of the broken. That is possibly another fad, although the concept may gain a foothold because of the new rationale. Maybe after the blurry water concept reaches its low point, it may remain only in the realm of professional and fine art photographers, only to be resurrected in another few years as a "new" style (we'll have a fine chuckle then).

An interesting apology... I can remember my teenage daughter coming home from school in the mid 80's, raving about this brand new hit singer who was hitting the charts - Tina Turner. She couldn't believe it when her mother and I told her that Tina had been a big name in the late 60's and early 70's (our daughter was born in 1969). That's when she realized the meaning of the word "fad."

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

rook2c4 wrote:

I must admit, the very first time I encountered a long exposure blurry water photograph, many years ago, I found it intriguing. But the novelty soon wore off. Now it has become a tired gimmick. There are many things which would make an interesting image of moving objects under long exposure. However, blurry waterfalls, flowing rivers and sea shores - that theme has been done to death. I do appreciate special effects photography, but only if it offers some sense of uniqueness and originality.

Best reply yet!

cthahn

Do what you want to do.

AzShooter1 Loc: Surprise, Az.

Most excellent shot.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

stansoper wrote:

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

Those that can, do. Those that cannot, find an excuse.