Long exposure water shots

S

Steve T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,100
Name
STEVE
Edit My Images
No
I see fantastic shots in fabulous locations of waterfalls and tides that are superb.

If you like long exposures.

Would it not be a good idea to take a normal exposure of the same shot to illustrate the natural look of water at the same time??

I really dont like the milky water effect!

After all the effort to get to a location and set up a shot, it seems mad not to create both types of image??

Anyone else agree???

Steve.
 
Not quite sure I understand - Are you suggesting also posting a shot of the water that isn't a long exposure, so you can compare the two ?

I often take reference shots with a 'normal' exposure before I set up for a longer exposure, but these are generally just that, a reference.
 
The photographer takes the shot they want to take. If it's long exposure then I'm not sure of the relevance of anything else, unless of course he/she feels otherwise.
 
Define "Normal Exposure"

Is it 1/2000th so that every droplet is frozen, or is it 1/60th which gives some blurring, or is a 6-second "smooth water" exposure the right shot?

People capture images to give them the "feel" and effect they are looking for, and for something like a waterfall there are no "rules."
 
Obviously it depends upon the specific water conditions, but exposures of less than a second but greater than, say, 1/30th, will retain texture and show movement in the water, and it will still look like water, not milk. 1/15th is a good starting point for water moving through rapids or a waterfall.
 
For me personally, photographing a waterfall to freeze the movement of the water is not representative of a water...fall. Anything that shows a touch, or lots of motion in the shot is my preference. I like shots that are still very quick but show movement right up to the really long 10 stop type exposures.

If I went out to a location to specifically shoot a waterfall with a really long exposure, I'd not bother with a short one.
 
Surely it's impossible to take a single still image of moving water that will show correctly what the water looks like ?

Different shutter speeds give different interpretations - if you like - of what moving water looks like but only a video could show it like it really is.
 
jerry12953 said:
Surely it's impossible to take a single still image of moving water that will show correctly what the water looks like ?

Different shutter speeds give different interpretations - if you like - of what moving water looks like but only a video could show it like it really is.
Click to expand...
I think that sums it up nicely.
It all depends on the effect the photographer is looking for.
Sometimes I like the "smooth" effect with a 10-stop filter and sometimes I like to see every droplet with a fast shutter speed and sometimes something in between.
I'd agree it's impossible to take a single still image and show exactly what the water looks like, but I'd argue that different people perceive the actual view differently.
Do you stare at the water and try to pick out individual droplets, or do you regard it as a moving object within a landscape?
I would imagine that few people have the initial approach and most embrace water as a moving object which is part of a broader scene.
To capture the effect of moving water is one of those occasions when photography enters the "impressionist" zone.
 
I think the OP maybe refering to a picture of a water shot as the eye's see it??? It's how I prefer to see them in general, I like to see the force of the water.
 
I do agree to some extend what the OP is saying but it depends on the location for me.

I normally will go to a scene with a set image I want to capture in my mind. The milky effect to which the OP is referring is usually taken with Neutral Density (ND) filter(s). To achieve this, like many people I will use a 10-Stop ND.

Having got my shot of the day. I would probably ( and have done ) take some exposures to freeze the water. This time substituting the ND for circular polariser to cut down the reflections in the water and add a bit of impact to the vegetation.

Generally I will shoot as the mood takes me after getting the shot I want. In some cases I don't get the shot I was planning, the lighting wasn't quite right etc etc !

In some cases, the secondary technique has turned out better, in summary I never limit myself or set anything in stone. Flexibility is the name of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top