Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography.
Apr 15, 2017 08:16:04 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
I look forward to your comments.You're right. You are crazy and off-base.
Apr 15, 2017 08:18:31 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
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.
This shot shows why he is crazy and off-base.Apr 15, 2017 08:20:23 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
stansoper wrote:
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.
So you never post a picture or show them to someone else?
Apr 15, 2017 08:22:00 #
lrm
Loc: Sarasota, FL
I too am not crazy about milky water. A little bit like the photo above is my favorite.
Apr 15, 2017 08:37:01 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
Kalskag2 wrote:
Some have posted that they have seen so many photo... (show quote)
Some have posted that they have seen so many photos of blurred waterfalls that it has become a gimmick. Can the same thing be said about photos taken with fast shutter speeds that show no movement?
Not really - photos take with fast shutter speeds are almost non-existant.
Apr 15, 2017 08:41:08 #
stansoper wrote:
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.
Yup Agreed
Apr 15, 2017 08:46:39 #
Here are two images taken at Small Fall Rangeley Maine
Apr 15, 2017 08:56:12 #
There is a phrase that is ysed sometimes when a chef cooks a meal that is overcomplicated. "over chefed)" My feeling is that the "creamy" water is "over photographed". Water should look like water. A blurry flower would be critized as OOF. My opinion of course.
Apr 15, 2017 08:58:44 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
Freezing the water is as unrealistic.
I saw a study some years ago that concluded 1/13 sec. was the magic exposure time between the two. I usually take at least one shot at 1/13 if light allows. Sometimes I like it best.
Sometimes I like the blur. Sometimes not.
Apr 15, 2017 09:01:41 #
For most photos I agree with you . Without the blur you get more of a sense of the feel and movement of water. I do appreciate the effect in certain shots, if you are going for a certain look, but it is way overdone and I think it makes the rest of us feel like we are doing something wrong if we don't blur. It 's a trend gone crazy:)
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
Apr 15, 2017 09:05:21 #
mborn wrote:
Here are two images taken at Small Fall Rangeley Maine
I prefer the 1/4 sec here. Next time try one at 1/13 sec.
Apr 15, 2017 09:05:52 #
Despite whether you prefer the crisp or the soft, this is the photographic excellence that I strive for!!! This shot is absolutely magical. . . Crisp, yet soft and I seldom if ever gush. Thanks for sharing.
mrjcall wrote:
I understand there are a variety of opinions on the topic. Posted this in the Long Exposure section a few days ago and had some interesting comments. Thoughts?
Apr 15, 2017 09:06:21 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
It depends on the image to me, I do not mind it, in some cases I really like it and it does add to the dynamic in other pictures, it can take away from it, maybe too it has to do with the mood I'm in while looking at the image, can't really tell, but like I said, I like it both ways, I don't think one is better than the other!
Apr 15, 2017 09:09:44 #
Flowing water that looks like ground fog or like milk distracts because the effect calls attention to itself. This over-blurring of moving water thus violates the general rule of avoiding distractions from the main subject in a photograph.
Yet, as the discussion here shows, some photographers over-blur water for one of two reasons: (1) It pleases their eye. (2) It sells. These motivations for the over-blurring of water others may question until the cows come home, without changing anything.
To each his own.
Yet, as the discussion here shows, some photographers over-blur water for one of two reasons: (1) It pleases their eye. (2) It sells. These motivations for the over-blurring of water others may question until the cows come home, without changing anything.
To each his own.
boberic wrote:
There is a phrase that is ysed sometimes when a chef cooks a meal that is overcomplicated. "over chefed)" My feeling is that the "creamy" water is "over photographed". Water should look like water. A blurry flower would be critized as OOF. My opinion of course.
Apr 15, 2017 09:13:00 #
Jerry, you are always the voice of reason and the purveyor of great information.
jerryc41 wrote:
And some people don't like apple pie. It's the differences that make the world go around. I shoot both types of water - blurry and sharp.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.