Why The "Fuzzy" Waterfalls?

[joemusic321]

Why do so many people seem to prefer the surreal look of long exposures on waterfalls and streams? Personally, I don't mind some "slight" blurring but some of the shots I see look more like smoke than water coming over the falls. I know there's no accounting for taste but am I missing something?

[Gibbo]

I agree. I'm all for creativity and artistic-ness in a picture.. But it just seems to extract the reality from the image.

[argyle]

Why do so many people seem to prefer the surreal look of long exposures on waterfalls and streams? Personally, I don't mind some "slight" blurring but some of the shots I see look more like smoke than water coming over the falls. I know there's no accounting for taste but am I missing something?

No. Getting silky effects on waterfall shots is easy to do, but is also very easy to overdo. Of course, it all depends on what the shooter is trying to convey. Different strokes for different folks...

[joemusic321]

No. Getting silky effects on waterfall shots is easy to do, but is also very easy to overdo. Of course, it all depends on what the shooter is trying to convey. Different strokes for different folks...

Looking at your avatar (nice by the way), I can see which camp you're in :-) I guess I'm just a "less is more" guy. As you say, "different strokes..."

[argyle]

Nah...I don't put myself in any camp. The shot in my avatar is from Havasu Falls...the area has been referred to as "paradise" and "Shang-ri-la", so I went for that type of shot. For others, I prefer to use a faster shutter speed that will keep some rivulets of the water, but still show a bit of silkiness (see below) without the cotton candy look. I agree that sometimes the effect is way overdone, though, especially when less experienced shooters are trying different techniques...long-time shooters can overdo it just as well.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/325314602_gASp7-L.jpg

[peter nap]

Nah...I don't put myself in any camp. The shot in my avatar is from Havasu Falls...the area has been referred to as "paradise" and "Shang-ri-la", so I went for that type of shot. For others, I prefer to use a faster shutter speed that will keep some rivulets of the water, but still show a bit of silkiness (see below) without the cotton candy look. I agree that sometimes the effect is way overdone, though, especially when less experienced shooters are trying different techniques...long-time shooters can overdo it just as well.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/325314602_gASp7-L.jpg

I was just about to post one of my stop the drops, waterfall pictures...but after seeing that photo, I'm going to format my hardrive and take up knitting.:oops:

[PFDarkside]

I like a little blur, frozen water just looks wierd unless there is a specific shot that calls for it. I love that pic above, it's perfect.

[peter nap]

This is one I took to try my moonlight filter on. I thought stopping the water would show up better especially if I increased the midtones.

Now I'm going to have to go back and retake it at a little slower shutter just to see.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa57/peternap/falls2.jpg

[rdricks]

I think there is a time for both, depending on what you are trying to show.

This shot was taken at around 11:00pm, and there was no choice. It was about an 8 minute exposure. The smooth water conveys more of a calm feeling.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/2767812007_4e7262a27d.jpg

On the other hand, sometimes freezing the action is what I want. This shot shows how powerful the falls can be.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/1507643986_729dbac03c.jpg

I would not consider either right or wrong, but both have the feeling I was trying for in the shots.

[Curtis N]

I've never liked shots that turn running water into mush, but sometimes slowing down the shutter a little makes the image look more realistic.

This is at 1/320.
http://performancephoto.smugmug.com/photos/531918720_CeDCV-L.jpg

This is at 1/40.
http://performancephoto.smugmug.com/photos/528787454_Dd6q7-L.jpg

[Karl Johnston]

I prefer shots that show the movement of the water and the droplets themselves...I grew out of the smooth look, though it does look good in some instances.

I'll upload a pic to my flickr of 1/8000th of a second at 2.8 iso 100:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3517953936_1abbd7843d.jpg?v=0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/karljohnston/3517953936/

[tonydee]

Why do so many people seem to prefer the surreal look of long exposures on waterfalls and streams? Personally, I don't mind some "slight" blurring but some of the shots I see look more like smoke than water coming over the falls. I know there's no accounting for taste but am I missing something?

Just a theory...

I guess it's the same as blatantly tone-mapped HDRs, over-used local contrast enhancement, over-saturation and sharpening, and extremely shallow DOF: high-impact stuff that the average person either can't or doesn't bother to do with their compact camera (in this case because they can't be bothered with a tripod). In Average Joe and Jane's minds, this is presumed an advanced photographer's result, maybe even art worth paying for (whatever being caught up in the moment extends to).

Of course, I'm not saying that any of these techniques/styles/processing/whatever don't have a legitimate place in more sophisticated or artistic work. Just addressing the "why so many people... prefer" part of your question. I think it's not so many photographers' preference, though they probably like variety and would want to do at least some. Rather - it's so many non-photographers, and photographers catering for non-photographers....

Be interested to hear whether other people's experiences mesh with this theory.

Cheers, Tony

[blackcap]

Just a theory...

I guess it's the same as blatantly tone-mapped HDRs, over-used local contrast enhancement, over-saturation and sharpening, and extremely shallow DOF: high-impact stuff that the average person either can't or doesn't bother to do with their compact camera (in this case because they can't be bothered with a tripod). In Average Joe and Jane's minds, this is presumed an advanced photographer's result, maybe even art worth paying for (whatever being caught up in the moment extends to).

Of course, I'm not saying that any of these techniques/styles/processing/whatever don't have a legitimate place in more sophisticated or artistic work. Just addressing the "why so many people... prefer" part of your question. I think it's not so many photographers' preference, though they probably like variety and would want to do at least some. Rather - it's so many non-photographers, and photographers catering for non-photographers....

I've heard quite a few non-photographer friends/colleagues comment on silky water saying it looked unrealistic, so I would say Average Joe prefers the type of shot they'd get by leaving the camera in Auto mode.

I love silky water, I can't think of a single stream/river/waterfall shot with frozen water that has appealed to me. The only time I like frozen water is in water drop shots.

________________
http://www.chrisgin.com (http://www.chrisgin.com/)

[harley130]

I was just about to post one of my stop the drops, waterfall pictures...but after seeing that photo, I'm going to format my hardrive and take up knitting.:oops:

Hey, my wife resembles that remark!! bw!:lol: