Blurring water - what am I doing wrong?
Oct 30, 2012 16:47:29 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
We almost all like the blurred effect of moving water... Not to mention frozen motion....LOL
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Oct 30, 2012 16:56:51 #
There are a lot of "fads" in photography....IR, HDR, UV, et al....Just to name a few...What you have to remember, is that the camera doesn't "see" the same as we do, so really any image can be said to not be what you "saw" & thus it comes down to an individuals personal preference. There is no "right" or "wrong" image, just what we prefer...
beverett wrote:
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Screamin Scott wrote:
We almost all like the blurred effect of moving water... Not to mention frozen motion....LOL
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Oct 30, 2012 17:19:57 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
There are a lot of "fads" in photography... (show quote)
Scott, of course you are right: There is no "right" or "wrong." I suppose it grieves me that so many spend so much time and money (ND filters, etc.) on copycat techniques when their energy might be better spent exploring something like composition.
Reminds me of the time at a public darkroom when a woman showed me b&w prints she had solarized and offered to give me some pointers. I told her I had a hard enough time just making a good regular print.
Oct 30, 2012 18:59:43 #
Oct 30, 2012 20:30:11 #
energizerdel wrote:
I'm hoping someone here can help me. I like the effect that so many people have when they blur waterfalls, oceans etc, but have tried over and over without any success. I have a Canon 20D, have used a low ISO, small aperture, slow speed, etc etc - all the advice everyone gives, plus have used a ND8 filter and yet still can't get the effect and have no idea what I'm doing wrong. Photos are still coming out extremely over exposed. Any suggestions would be really appreciated. Thanks.
I took this shot around 11 a.m. which was not the best time of day. I used 2 ND filters plus a CP. These filters really brought out the color, but I should have taken the shot later in the day, just before sunset. I don't post here very much but I do read everyone's input. I have reflected on my photos along with your comments. Thanks for everyone's help.
Mammoth Spring State Park behind dam 1 in Mammoth Spring Arkansas
Oct 30, 2012 20:46:23 #
Here is another photo of Mammoth Spring Arkansas. I used 2 ND filters and a CP. Time of day was around 11:00 a.m. F22 at 1 sec.
Mammoth Spring Arkansas, Dam no. 1
Oct 30, 2012 22:05:10 #
Oct 31, 2012 01:31:14 #
beverett wrote:
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Screamin Scott wrote:
We almost all like the blurred effect of moving water... Not to mention frozen motion....LOL
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
I first saw blurred water photos in a magazine put out by Pentax when I bought my K1000 in the late 70's. By definition a fad is:
Noun:
An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze.
30+ years is not short lived in my book.
Oct 31, 2012 15:03:15 #
ArnieA
Loc: BC,Canada
Nikonian72 wrote:
Nikon D5000 at ISO 100, Nikkor 18-55 zoom lens at 55-mm, 0.6-sec at f/36, overcast sky & moderately dense tree foliage.
The only problem I have is that you need to increase your depth of field and this photo would be awesome. Try it again at a much higher f- stop- like 16+.
That is my advice.
Arnie
Oct 31, 2012 15:07:37 #
ArnieA
Loc: BC,Canada
ArnieA wrote:
The only problem I have is that you need to increase your depth of field and this photo would be awesome. Try it again at a much higher f- stop- like 16+.
That is my advice.
Arnie
Nikonian72 wrote:
Nikon D5000 at ISO 100, Nikkor 18-55 zoom lens at 55-mm, 0.6-sec at f/36, overcast sky & moderately dense tree foliage.
The only problem I have is that you need to increase your depth of field and this photo would be awesome. Try it again at a much higher f- stop- like 16+.
That is my advice.
Arnie
I'm trying to refer to the first photo. After posting I reread the stats and I don't know what is wrong. Please ignore reply except for the fact that you need more depth of field for the 1 st photo. Sorry I'm new at posting.
Arnie
Oct 31, 2012 15:09:14 #
Oct 31, 2012 16:43:43 #
beverett wrote:
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Screamin Scott wrote:
We almost all like the blurred effect of moving water... Not to mention frozen motion....LOL
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Here are a few more "fads". Good lighting, good composition, and digital photography. Also HDTV. :roll: :lol:
Oct 31, 2012 17:01:40 #
Anyone knowledgeable about the history of Photography will understand that any early (mid 19th century for example) photograph of a waterfall or any moving water would have been blurry, due to the long exposures required in early technology. Today it is an aesthetic choice.
Oct 31, 2012 18:03:44 #
pounder35 wrote:
Here are a few more "fads". Good lighting, good composition, and digital photography. Also HDTV. :roll: :lol:
beverett wrote:
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Screamin Scott wrote:
We almost all like the blurred effect of moving water... Not to mention frozen motion....LOL
ALMOST ALL is right. It's a fad, as I said in an earlier post. It looks like melting ice cream, whipped cream or spilled milk. Ask yourself, "Is that really what I saw?"
Here are a few more "fads". Good lighting, good composition, and digital photography. Also HDTV. :roll: :lol:
Technical excellence such as good lighting is a fundamental, as is good composition. These are parts of the art of photography. Digital and HDTV are processes and have little to do with art. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that he had seen blurred water 30 years ago. It is only more recently that it has taken on the characteristics of a fad. Most of those who are posting here on the subject seem to believe that any photograph in which water is NOT blurred is terribly flawed.
Granted, it is an aesthetic choice, but one repeatedly overdone, and therefore a "fad." Back in the day when the speed of Kodachrome was 12, in a photograph of moving water with abundant depth of field the water would have been blurred. Today it is a choice.
Sometimes a little blur enhances an image. Other times, freezing the water is appropriate. Very, very seldom, in my aesthetic judgement, does making water look like thick soup pouring over rocks produce a satisfying image.
My point is simply this: Use the technique advisedly and in limited instances and don't overdo the blur. A filter, except for a polarizer, is seldom needed.
Oct 31, 2012 18:29:31 #
try this web site for water flow. http://www.takeabetterphoto.com/free-photography-tips/flowing-rivers/
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.