Blurring water in waterfalls and stream photography.
Apr 15, 2017 09:15:19 #
buddingfatographer
Loc: Nashville
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
I look forward to your comments.I think that the same way someone, often times, can pick up two watches and assume (maybe even subconsciously) that the heavier one is more expensive... even if lighter materials were more practical, desirable, or costly... still water, to many, can scream "snapshot" while smooth or blurry water might lead the viewer to think more was involved. Anyone who knows should be able to appreciate what goes into both stopping motion, and accentuating it... but like others have said... it's all in the eye of who's beholding it. Get too much blur... and it'll look like one of those illuminated scenes in an Asian buffet restaurant playing "in the style of Celine Dion" on the karaokephone.
Apr 15, 2017 09:17:39 #
mborn wrote:
Here are two images taken at Small Fall Rangeley Maine
Two very good images. IMHO, the milky water image is what would sell to the majority of the general public, a point that has been mentioned previously. The stopped water image would be the sort of print an outdoorsman (or outdoors-woman) might love to see in their home.
It's a matter of taste, or, if shooting for a living, targeting your market.
Getting either image correct is the technical challenge for the photographer, and getting it right is its own reward.
Apr 15, 2017 09:28:17 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
I totally agree. Blurred water gives a surreal theme and if all the other elements are not surreal, then blurred water is just unreal.
Apr 15, 2017 09:42:38 #
I prefer the slightly blurred effect which is close to what you actually see but I also acknowledge that there are many who prefer that silky smooth look. Like you, I shoot for myself so I can indulge my personal preferences. Those who shoot for a living cannot afford that luxury and must follow where the market leads.
Apr 15, 2017 09:44:02 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
I think it's a gimmick that's over-used. The first few times I saw the effect I thought, "Wow that's cool." Now it's just run-of-the-mill. I do like the photo below where the effect is more much subtle and does not over-tweak reality. >Alan
Apr 15, 2017 09:45:44 #
CO wrote:
I use my neutral density filters to get the smoothed out water effect but to a mild degree. I like the water to retain its character so I use shutters speeds around 1/8 or 1/15 second. This is how I like to photograph flowing water. The exposure time was 1/10 second.
I also prefer to see the form of the water with just enough blur to show motion. Once the exposure is so long that the water resembles fog, the form of the waterway is lost. As far as "realism" is concerned, both frozen water (high shutter speed) and milky water do not represent, in my opinion, reality. This shot of Soco Falls in North Carolina was taken at 1/2 second.
Apr 15, 2017 09:49:11 #
I, too, don't like the smeared effect of long-exposure pictures of moving water. It doesn't look real to me. (IMO) The picture above of a modest longer exposure taken by CO looks fine -- to me.
Apr 15, 2017 09:50:15 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
In my opinion the contrast of "moving" water and sharp landscape can be much more appealing than a busy micro second stop action image.
Motion is part of the story and up to the discretion of the story teller...
Motion is part of the story and up to the discretion of the story teller...
Apr 15, 2017 09:51:51 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
In my opinion the contrast of "moving" water and sharp landscape can be much more appealing than a busy micro second stop action image.
Motion is part of the story and up to the discretion of the story teller...
Motion is part of the story and up to the discretion of the story teller...
Apr 15, 2017 09:55:27 #
Thought I was alone in my opinion that causing waves and waterfalls look like cotton is not a picture. It may be an artform, but it does not depict the scene. Waves and waterfalls aren't made of cotton candy. Videos are for motion while photographs, for me, are a slice of reality, a static moment in time. Race cars and running people photographed while panning the camera is a different story. I use the same shutter speed that I would choose if the car were parked, not a prolonged exposure.
Moving water that is a bit soft or blurry from using a "normal" exposure has the same effect as the blurry background of a panned photo. It portrays the motion without looking "phony".
Moving water that is a bit soft or blurry from using a "normal" exposure has the same effect as the blurry background of a panned photo. It portrays the motion without looking "phony".
Apr 15, 2017 10:13:28 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
I think that you are entitled to your opinion. Just like me, I am not particularly fond of the image someone just posted of the milk being poured over a woman's breast. But some other people might and probably do appreciate the art.
Apr 15, 2017 10:29:07 #
Tere are times in a dark forest like the smoky mountains a slow shutter speed has to be used or there is no picture to take. I have learned when and when not to blur the water. A large waterfall nop way unless it is a dark forest. A small cascade in a dark forest yes. At Blackwater Falls in West Virginia middle, Elaka Falls is surrounded by hemlock and Rhodendron and it is dark. It's either forget the picture or blur the water.beautiful waterfall.
Apr 15, 2017 10:30:41 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
It is interesting to see the variety of opinions! I like a variety of effects! For the most part, my preference is to see definition in the water flow, some contrast, but not overly silky and not overly sharp. For me, this is how the water appears when looking at it! But I often take multiple shots so I can capture different degrees of silky/sharp and then at home will choose the best one [in my opinion...].
The first image is taken at a local waterfall, known as The Cascades, the stream is Notch Stream. This is coming off of Mount Greylock in North Adams, MA. It is what I see as "in between".
The second and third images are taken at Otter Cliffs/Otter Point in Acadia National Park. The second is fairly silky, but appropriate because it was actually very misty. The third captures the water details as the waves crashed and broke up on the rocks.
The Cascades Waterfall
Misty Ocean, Rocky Shore
Crashing Waves, Morning Light
Apr 15, 2017 10:33:15 #
stansoper wrote:
I may be crazy and off-base, but I don't like moti... (show quote)
HI the blur can be creative and show motion if done correctly. When shooting action shots I do like a bit of smearing to show movement. i.e.. a baseball shot showing a bit of blur on the bat. But as you say, most of the time it looks fake.
Apr 15, 2017 10:37:26 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.