Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography.
Apr 15, 2017 10:43:43 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
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.
It's an artistic photographic expression to create a mood. Use it, don't use it. It's up to you. Do you also not like background blur and prefer to use a wide DoF so everything is in focus? I know people who do.
Apr 15, 2017 11:00:10 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
I look forward to your comments.I agree. I've always thought it was a formulaic gimmick. I'd rather stop the water splashes sharply in mid-air.
There is a time and place for everything, though. Depth of field can be shallow or deep for completely different effects. When it is *always* shallow in a photographer's work, I wonder if they know how to do anything else. Same for fuzzy waterfalls...
Apr 15, 2017 11:01:59 #
mflowe
Loc: Port Deposit, MD
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.
It's not a gimmick. Besides being artistically pleasing it's often the only outcome you were going to get before the introduction of high ISO digital cameras. Most photographers do not shoot in harsh midday light and look for overcast conditions to shoot waterfalls and flowing water. For landscape photographers detail matters. So you're talking low ISO, small apertures and longer shutter speeds. With the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras you still don't see many frozen water shots. So that should tell you something. I agree with a previous post that talked about shooting a race car with a fast shutter speed to freeze motion. How pleasing is that?
Apr 15, 2017 11:07:32 #
Good conversation, everyone.
Always see some new (to me) outlooks, it certainly encourages me to experiment more
Always see some new (to me) outlooks, it certainly encourages me to experiment more
Apr 15, 2017 11:23:54 #
illininitt wrote:
How many 2017 cars come in manual these days? God made Auto for a reason.... Maybe manual would save gas....but only .2% care.
Last I checked, it was a human who came up with the concept of a car and humans have been making them with the help of robots in more recent times. What do you know that you are not telling us?
Apr 15, 2017 11:24:36 #
photon38 wrote:
Good conversation, everyone.
Always see some new (to me) outlooks, it certainly encourages me to experiment more
Always see some new (to me) outlooks, it certainly encourages me to experiment more
And THAT response is one of the primary values of a forum like this..... Good for you!
Apr 15, 2017 11:40:06 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
Thanks for the topic Stan. I took this stream shot last fall in Steamboat Springs, Co, I took this at 1/125 SS. I like to keep water blur to a minimum on stream shots. For waterfalls I like to slow down the SS to around 1/4 second to show more motion blur. I submitted this photo in my local photo clubs yearly open photo contest in Non-pro color and it took 3rd place.
Apr 15, 2017 12:15:24 #
johnbee418
Loc: Manchester Conn.
Count me in to increase the natural look crowd. I always use 1/60 shutter to photograph moving water.
Apr 15, 2017 12:16:43 #
BHC wrote:
I agree completely. For surreal or "artistic" purposes, it may be acceptable, but I prefer realism.
How is frozen water realism? Just asking
Apr 15, 2017 12:34:36 #
Reddog wrote:
How is frozen water realism? Just asking
The human eye has a "frame rate" equivalent to about 1/320 second. I'm sitting here in a high rise condo on New Smyrna Beach, Fl, watching waves crash on the shore. I see no motion blur at all! The breakers are sharply detailed.
Apr 15, 2017 12:34:40 #
Reddog wrote:
How is frozen water realism? Just asking
Ice!
Apr 15, 2017 12:34:57 #
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 technique makes more sense to me. Then again, if an ND filter and long exposure is used on, say, a bay shot or shoreline...well, *that* looks good IMO...
Apr 15, 2017 12:35:49 #
I agree. Personally I don't like the motion blur because it looks unnatural. It's not what the eye sees.
Apr 15, 2017 12:38:06 #
Apr 15, 2017 12:42:00 #
DebAnn wrote:
I agree. Personally I don't like the motion blur because it looks unnatural. It's not what the eye sees.
So let me ask you a question. If and when you take a portrait shot, or look at one that that has blurry fore and backgrounds, do you also dislike those?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.