Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Last week, we had a couple of days of moderately heavy rain. After the rains stop, I like to go out looking for running water to photograph. There is only one waterfall that I can get to, without hiking for hours, and I've taken that waterfall, quite a few times. This time, I wanted to find some interesting running water below that waterfall.

The light was pretty hard, even when one considers that the areas I had chosen to photograph were relatively shaded. There was enough of that hard light poking through to make the effort a challenge, but that's part of the fun, anyway. There is so much wild growth in the immediate area that getting to a photogenic spot was often problematic. Once there, I had the added challenge of finding a stable spot to park a tripod.

When I shoot running water, I generally prefer the shutter speed to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/2 second, or less. There is usually enough time for motion blur, but not enough to turn the water into milk. In the first shot, I pretty much got the water texture I wanted, but the shot didn't thrill me. This is a creek I was photographing, not a river. A river usually has a definite shoreline, at least more definite that that of a creek, whose edges move with the rainfall. In the first shot, I felt that the boundary between water and land was not well defined. If I were to use a longer shutter speed, I figured that more of the water would turn a milky color, adding to the definition of the shoreline. Of course, I wouldn't get the texture that I like, from the water.

So, here are two shots of the same spot. For the second, I moved the tripod, slightly, changed lenses, and added a 6-stop ND filter. I probably could have gone with a 3-stop filter, but I liked the way this turned out. The first shot was taken with a shutter speed of 1/25 second, and the second shot was taken with a shutter speed of 3.2 seconds.

(Download)


(Download)

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I really like the second shot, for the water movement, the shape of the stream and the complexity of the forest. Good job.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I too like the 2nd shot, I like the blue sky in the trees and the “creamy” water.

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

I too like the second shot, but I’m not a milky water fan, so the answer would be a blend of two shots. It’s a technique I often find helpful in making minor corrections - like the one I’m working on at present where one grandchild has decided to do an ‘eyes right’ whilst everything else is fine. Fortunately there’s a second shot with the eyes in right spot but brother has dropped his appealing pose, so blending is the answer. With a tripod the task can be made easier as two shots from exactly the same spot is very helpful!
Not everyone agrees with the ethics of the method but that’s getting a bit photo-OTT for me.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thank you, all, for your comments.

Shots of running water are interesting in the variety of reactions they evoke. If I send out, to family and friends, a nice wildlife shot, I'll get several "nice photo" replies, but when I send, to the same folks, photos with running water motion blur, I will always get a discussion. I need to get a large animal to stand perfectly still, in running water, long enough for motion blur.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I like the perspective of the second shot better. The forest is more inviting and the foreground is more interesting. Unfortunately I'm not a fan of using motion blur on water, so I would have increased the shutter speed to get rid of all of it.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

I like the water in the first image and I like the POV of the second image. Too much smoothness/whiteness of the water can make the image feel unnatural.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks for your comments. I, too, would have preferred a faster shutter speed for less motion blur, but I thought the first version did not present enough of a boundary between creek and shore. I did attempt to deal with that in post processing, but I was not happy with my efforts. The extended shutter time allowed the flowing water to get whiter, with more blur, which, I thought, enhanced the difference between creek and shore. The tradeoff was some less interesting detail in the water.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

--------------------------------------------------

Second image - to me- is the better of the two.

Thank you for posting.

-0-

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'm left wondering what it would be like if you used a longer shutter speed for more smoothness and then selected the water and bumped up the Contrast and Clarity to give it more depth instead of it turning creamy white. Perhaps lowering the Shadows as well might counteract the creamy white effect. (Just speculating - haven't tried it yet).

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

What I like best about both shots is that you have very nice detail in both the highlights and the shadows. I only noticed one area in the foliage of both shots (dark area above the right bank) where there appears to be almost no detail in the dark area. It is a small area and I think this goes a long way in creating a black point. That adds depth. The exposure of the water in the first shot has almost no pure white areas, whereas the second shot has a few areas where there is no detail at all. Considering that it is quickly moving white water, a few blown areas are perfectly fine to my eye. What I like best about both shots is that you have an anchoring element in the foreground that brings us into the composition. (clump of grass). Judging by the comments made by others, creamy white or stopped action or somewhere in between is completely subjective and up to the viewer. My rule of thumb is how much water there is. In a small stream I'll usually opt for a long exposure to blur the water and create a creamy texture. If there is a lot of water, then I usually prefer a faster shutter speed so that I can see what is going on. What I like best about both shots is the attention to detail in the composition. It appears to be a random shot of a stream; but we all know that you fretted over vantage point, perspective and exposure. The bottom line is that I like them both, but my personal preference in this instance is the second shot. A good study for us all to learn from. Well done.
Erich

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks, for your comments. I will probably get around to trying your suggestions, RG.

Erich, you hit the nail on the head -- the ideal shot of flowing water is very subjective. The whole challenge of getting the perfect shot of running water is so much fun, simply because there is no "correct" answer. I can get too focused on that challenge, though, rather than be focused on the primary objective, which is to take a photo that people want to look at for more than a mere glance. On the same day these shots were taken, I went further upstream, and found a spot that featured somewhat shallow water running over a rocky bed. I had to descend a slippery slope to get there, and, once there, I discovered that there was only enough room to situate my tripod, precariously, on a large boulder. The flowing water was interesting, almost hypnotic, but there was nothing else to make the shot any more than a somewhat interesting example of running water.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

How many times have we all gone to great lengths figuring that efforts will surely result in something spectacular. Then we find out that our lens does not see what our mind had envisioned. Still, you never really know until you get your lens there and see for yourself. I commend your efforts.
erich