Daniel E Loc: north Idaho

Thanks very much for all the great comments on my previous post. It was an interesting discussion, starting out with sharpness and progressing through composition, focal point and the depiction of waterfalls. I agree that waterfall "milkiness" is not a natural look. I guess I started doing it because others did. Maybe just a bit slower shutter speed instead of a lot?

The photo here is a waterfall shot at a "normal" shutter speed - 1/125 second. An older photo with older camera and myself with less experience.

What is the consensus among you? More natural like this one, milky like some, or somewhere in between?

(Download)

RichKenn Loc: Merritt Island, FL

I normally think 1/125 is a good shutter speed for waterfalls but this one seems to be moving really fast and looks like that fake cobweb they sell for Halloween. There is no right speed for all moving water. My preference is that it look like water not shaving foam.

JayRay Loc: Missouri

Great photograph Daniel! I prefer a slight milky look, but you have to really be careful not to blow out the highlights such that there is still detail in the flowing water. I have read that a shutter speed of 1/60 second captures the motion of waterfalls similar to the way our eyes and brains perceive that motion.

gener202002

Not being a professional I am wondering if any sharpening has been done on this picture or other edits. The water appears to be silky like a spider web. Nothing wrong with that I guess, it all depends on the effect you want For a long time it seemed to be popular to take long exposures of waterfalls in order to get a smooth look. It never did anything for me. I do think though that one person's poison is another's cup of tea. I think we often get caught up so much in the technique, we miss the overall mood of the photo. A photo should tell a story. But there is more than one story that can be told. Here, I think we get one story, which may appeal to some and not to others. Some people seem to like only the most natural look. But I think it depends on the mood we are trying to create in the viewer. I wish I had easier access to a lot of outdoor streams and such. It might be wise to take more pictures of this scene with vastly different settings, including shutter speed, iso, darker, lighter, different appertures, and see which outcome produces the feeling you really like. The photo has appeal. It is just a matter of exactly how you want the photo to look.

It is nice.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

When looking at a waterfall, it's usual to see flying drops of water and spray created by the rapid movement of the turbulent, falling water. Picturing anything other than that just doesn't look right!!! If it's winter, and the water is frozen, it's obviously a solid mass, but enough with the "shaving cream" effect! Some people who are absolute "purists" with regard to the least little altering of a picture seem to think nothing of taking that liberty. If it's "art", then that is something else again, everyone has a favorite "look", and that's all right.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

This is what I find interesting: many who think waterfalls should have a natural look may be the same ones who love B&W photography. What is more unnatural looking than a B&W image of a scene naturally full of color. We all have our likes and dislikes but when I see a B&W image posted I don't feel a need to let the OP know I don't like B&W but when someone posts a milky waterfall it is a given that several will comment that they prefer the natural look. With waterfalls you can take several pictures at different shutter speeds so you'll have the best of both worlds.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

There can be exceptions, obviously, but in general, I MUCH prefer color images of colored subjects. I don't think I EVER have turned a color image into black and white! Years ago - in the film days, before color was available - all my images were of necessity black and white, but I certainly moved to color as soon as it was of good quality.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Waterfalls are alive with flowing movement - often with sunlight catching splashes and water droplets and spray. It is one of the better opportunities to picture lively movement. Why spoil it with slow shutters to create blur?

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Im sorry but the water looks like fake spider webs.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Why spoil a colorful scene with a B&W rendering of it?

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

He didn't suggest black and white.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Stephan G

Why do we need a "consensus"? When we make photographs of anything, we strive to present our vision. If we want to present "reality", then we do so to the degree we decide what that "reality" looks. We have to keep in mind that it is the individual that decides what they want of the image viewed.

Personally, I look at presentations for what the creator sees and is trying to present. And how well the creator achieves the presentation of the vision. To try to force, yes force, the creator to "toe" some arbitrary lines is counter to what photographers strive to accomplish.

rthurlow

I grew up with B&W photography. It's worth checking out the effects of Black and white on the mood of the subjects. Not as easy as one may think.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

A slow shutter speed turns round droplets into ovals.
I can't see where any "sharpening" will help make them round again (sharper).

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

To me, the water still doesn't look natural.