Flowing Water
Jun 7, 2018 11:22:13 #
I have always wondered why some photogs prefer the silky look for flowing water. My preference has been to convey some sense of movement in the image. I’ve included an old iPhone shot in Sabino Canyon, Tucson that is one of my favorites - won’t really take much enlargement. What are the arguments for silky other than person taste?
Jun 7, 2018 11:27:50 #
Jun 7, 2018 11:35:45 #
It's just an artistic decision, like any other. Or, with pro photographers, it could be a "market demand" kind of thing, similar to highly saturated landscapes that are currently popular.
One of the most impactful silky waterfalls I've seen recently is #1 in the below topic by Rusty Nails:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-534306-1.html
Composition, light, processing, intent of mood or story - all work together. It's never simply about slow or fast shutter speed.
One of the most impactful silky waterfalls I've seen recently is #1 in the below topic by Rusty Nails:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-534306-1.html
Composition, light, processing, intent of mood or story - all work together. It's never simply about slow or fast shutter speed.
Jun 7, 2018 11:36:20 #
As you say, many people simply prefer the look of slower moving water which, unlike your static and realistic photo of moving water, conveys a sense of dreaminess or a certain mood the photographer is looking for on their photo. Your photo gives a sense of reality, a record shot taken to indicate on a certain date and time the area looked just like this. But, and no offense meant, there is no sense of artistic ability present other than accurately capturing the moment. Of course the mood setting photograph of slow moving water can be overdone, in my opinion
Dennis .
Dennis .
Jun 7, 2018 11:37:12 #
cdayton wrote:
I have always wondered why some photogs prefer the silky look for flowing water. My preference has been to convey some sense of movement in the image. I’ve included an old iPhone shot in Sabino Canyon, Tucson that is one of my favorites - won’t really take much enlargement. What are the arguments for silky other than person taste?
I think it depends on the overall scene the water is flowing through or over. The photographer will look it over and should, based on experience and (as you noted) personal taste, be able to decide how best the movement of the water should be presented in the finished photo.
Jun 7, 2018 11:43:51 #
sjb3 wrote:
I think it depends on the overall scene the water is flowing through or over. The photographer will look it over and should, based on experience and (as you noted) personal taste, be able to decide how best the movement of the water should be presented in the finished photo.
Yes, definitely.
Also, each different set of falls will look better slower or faster. The way the falls run will depend on which shutter speed looks better for that waterfall.
Jun 7, 2018 11:49:10 #
Eye of the beholder. Some prefer Rembrandt or Picasso or Monet or Klimt. Different strokes for different folks.
Jun 7, 2018 12:01:20 #
pesfls wrote:
Eye of the beholder. Some prefer Rembrandt or Picasso or Monet or Klimt. Different strokes for different folks.
Most definitely!
Jun 7, 2018 12:24:35 #
Long exposures let you take a ho-hum photograph of flowing water and make it something ethereal. The milky or silky look is a total transformation of what I think is nice, but totally mundane picture of water flowing over objects. The milky look draws viewers into the image, looking at the almost surreal shapes of flowing water as it cascades over the same rocks as in #1
Jun 7, 2018 15:18:10 #
cdayton wrote:
I have always wondered why some photogs prefer the silky look for flowing water. My preference has been to convey some sense of movement in the image. I’ve included an old iPhone shot in Sabino Canyon, Tucson that is one of my favorites - won’t really take much enlargement. What are the arguments for silky other than person taste?
It is all about personal taste. The images I personally don't care for are the ones where it looks like water has been replaced with milk. No texture at all is off putting to me.
On another note, I lived and worked in the Tucson area for about 9 years and never knew there was a fall in Sabino canyon!
Jun 7, 2018 15:37:50 #
Rich1939 wrote:
It is all about personal taste. The images I personally don't care for are the ones where it looks like water has been replaced with milk. No texture at all is off putting to me.
On another note, I lived and worked in the Tucson area for about 9 years and never knew there was a fall in Sabino canyon!
On another note, I lived and worked in the Tucson area for about 9 years and never knew there was a fall in Sabino canyon!
The dam is on a dirt trail that loops off the paved trail. It was one the WPA projects (I believe) from the 1930s.
Jun 7, 2018 15:58:58 #
cdayton wrote:
The dam is on a dirt trail that loops off the paved trail. It was one the WPA projects (I believe) from the 1930s.
thanks. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check it out.
Jun 7, 2018 17:05:00 #
cdayton wrote:
I have always wondered why some photogs prefer the silky look for flowing water. My preference has been to convey some sense of movement in the image. I’ve included an old iPhone shot in Sabino Canyon, Tucson that is one of my favorites - won’t really take much enlargement. What are the arguments for silky other than person taste?
Creating a mood rather than recording a fact. The impression the beholder feels when confronted by an image (the story they tell themselves) can be a strong influence on whether they like or buy an image. Hence dawn/evening shots evoke different feelings than flat mid day shots. Smooth water is tranquil, running water is 'active'. Different 'feelings'.
have fun
Jun 8, 2018 06:46:03 #
Jun 8, 2018 06:50:29 #
I take images of flowing water both ways. Then I pick out the one which conveys the mood I felt at the time
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.