Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Tired of angel hair waterfalls
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
Jul 4, 2017 00:22:49   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
John Howard wrote:
Like the thought. And fyi, this one appears somewhere in the middle of this discussion. Water movement with some blur, without freezing it still or making it look like foam.


Yup!

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 00:51:03   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
TheDman wrote:
When I shot this one there were a dozen or so hikers around me that all shot the fall with their cell. I'm sure they got some frozen droplets. It was worse at more touristy spots in Iceland... at one fall there must have been over a hundred cell shooters all getting frozen droplets. So out of 100 people there, I was the only guy doing longer exposures... yet I'm the cliche? I beg to differ. Feel free to go to Instagram and search the hashtag #waterfall to see which of the two styles is overdone.

You only see lots if them because you frequent photography sites, and because art directors and graphic designers like to use them in ads. Why? Because they don't look like some schmuck shot it with his cell. They look better than that. And as a veteran of fine art shows I can certainly tell you what would sell better, and it isn't any of the frozen droplet shots posted in this thread. You couldn't give those away.

There is no "best" shutter speed for moving water, as water moves at different speeds. 1/5 second might capture a lot of detail in a stream but turn a raging fall milk white. And milk white is often not the best choice if your water had good color in it, because you will lose the color. In the shot below I was trying to balance the low light, water motion, and tremendous blue color. Not perfect, but none ever are.
When I shot this one there were a dozen or so hike... (show quote)


Couldn't agree more. Both are tacky cliches when they are not done correctly. The frozen droplets because the shooter left his ND filter at home, and the cotton candy because the photographer just got a new ND and is testing it out. In most cases of each it is a case of if the only tool in the box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Landscape artists - whether they are painters or photographers, are not usually documentarians. The interpret the scene. The documentarians are easy to spot - they use cellphone cameras. A good interpretation of a waterfall is not just about making the water silky and smooth, it is about the mood and the serenity of a quiet waterfall in a sylvan setting far away from crowds and cellphone people, or the thundering chaos and power of a rain swollen waterfall with all of the spray and mist and churning, roiling water. Each demands a different interpretation, and often what works for one does not work for the other. For this one, at Rickett's Glen State Park in PA (22 named waterfalls, btw), I used a short shutter speed. I also tried it with a long one an it didn't work for me, but I deleted it so I can't show it.

1/125 sec
1/125 sec...
(Download)

Reply
Jul 4, 2017 02:16:43   #
Ernie Misner Loc: Lakewood, WA
 
It's really just personal preference as to the amount of softness (or detail) you want to see in the moving water. I do agree with you that when they get too soft I wonder where all the detail went. So... a very strong ND filter can leave the moving water too void of detail, but a polarizing filter does give you a bit of longer exposure (but not too much) and can increase the saturation as well. So my vote is usually for the polarizer on moving water.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.