Waterfalls - Airbrushing Nature?

I was showing my partner some of the landscape pictures on here last night and started talking about some of the waterfall shots. Without exception, they're all long exposure shots that make them look nice and serene etc.

However, my partner thought they all looked odd, because (rightly enough), waterfalls don't actually look like that in real life. Now, those pictures looked very good to me, because I've been told by popular photographic convention that they should be shot that way.

It's got me thinking, why do we follow convention in this way? What's wrong with natural looking waterfalls? Or is it because they look amateurish, like snapshots our Aunty would take with her little Kodak and we have to look better than that just because we have the technology to do so?

This thread will probably sink without trace, but I thought it would make for some interesting discussion...

Pete,

I am with you. I really like the waterfalls taken with long shutter speeds to get the smooth flowing water... "The misty feel" is what I like to refer to it as... The average joe shots taken with a disposable or p&s are just not for me... It gives the photo a whole different feel.

Hi Pete
I too, love shooting falls at slow shutter speeds. It gives a sense of movement to the image and is challenging. There's nothing wrong with using faster speeds to freeze the movement, its just a personal preference.
In fact, at the moment, I'm experimenting with combining slow and fast images together to try and get the best of both worlds

Slow and fast together would be interesting to see, probably look horrible, but may look good.

I was really questioning why every shot of a waterfall you see is with a slow shutter speed, we just seem to be conditioned to shoot and see pictures shot in that way...

I like them both ways. The slow shutter speeds that make waterfalls, or any flowing water, look so silky and smooth seems, like you say, to add a feeling of serenity to the shot. A fast shutter speed that captures individual droplets and spray gives a more dynamic and exciting feel to the shot. There's no "right or wrong" way to shoot waterfalls - rather it's about what you want to convey with the shot.

Mark

weemannie wrote:
In fact, at the moment, I'm experimenting with combining slow and fast images together to try and get the best of both worlds

I've done a couple and combined them, but it didn't really work because my subject simply was not powerful enough

Practical Photography did a tutorial on this recently and I hope to trek to some more impressive falls over the coming week

Look forward to seeing some of yours

Pete,
from my personal experience their are things that "should" be frozen in time, and those that need some motion in order to convey what we saw when we were there. It took my young brain (16 years ago when I got my first eos) a while to figure out that fast shutter speeds of cars look like parked cars, and are not very interesting (generally speaking... a rally car with dirt flying frozen in time still conveys motion!) So that is why I feel the need to blur watrefalls, and give them "cotton candy"-like looks.

Just my 2 cents...

Michael

I get exactly what you're saying there, Mike. Understand about racing cars too. The thing is with racing cars is that we mostly see them with the wheels blurred into invisibility (because our eyes scan at approx 50fps). Waterfalls, however are far slower, so our brain can process the individual drops of water without smoothing them out.

You have inspired me to tweak my "vision" of waterfalls... Not quite the cotton candy effect, but maybe a middle ground... hmmmm... I'll let you know if I come up with anything good.

I agree with your parents. I personally do not like those water fall pictures where the water looks more like a gushing stream or spary of water than a real water fall. I don't mind a little motion blur here and there on parts of the fall but not to the extend of blurring out the whole water fall. Just my 2 cents, though.

Both methods work good by me with all types of moving water, falls, rapids, tides, etc.

Long shutter speeds portray motion. Fast shutter speeds portray power. Each situation should be accessed different.

Although I do like the long exposure, I think it is used too many times, especially where there is a large volume of water and most of the image shows blurred water.

It's a technique that requires some effort, so at least I feel like I have worked hard for my image - as opposed to just pointing and shooting at it - as long as it is not overdone and it suits the composition of the picture (as indeed with other effects ).

It's also fun to experiment and see just what the camera and the person behind it, is capable of ...

Hi, just a newbie response, no experience here really... But a personal preference for me when looking at water/waterfalls is to see the water stopped in its tracks, such intricacy! To me it conveys motion and peacefulness just fine... and is always different. I'm getting tired of seeing blurred waterfall photos in so many places now... They're everywhere and they all kind of look the same to me, so I don't feel invited to a different place/experience with each photo... To me, when I get around to getting shots of falls, large and small... my challenge will be... Allowing the water to look so real so as for each droplet to be actually heard by the onlooker standing or sitting there... and to be felt on the skin... even the scent of the water and area could be somehow fixed into the presentation!... but also how to present the scene in a compelling, irresistable way, really interesting way, making the viewer really want to be there, and not "just another waterfall shot"... because even realistic waterfall shots can be, if nice, still mundane. Blurry moving water may be politically/artistical​ly correct for the majority, and I'll probably get beat up in here for this, but if I see one more blurry waterfall, I'll... (anyone who shares my feelings about it may finish this sentence for me! LOL) ~Anselina, ducking for cover (did someone say DUCK? lol) (sorry, I get silly when tired lol)

PS... I do not mean at all to insult those who really put effort into a certain look and feel for their waterfall shots in silky froth mode... way beyond my capabilities, for sure! I was just giving my *personal* feeling on how I prefer to look at water pics.

RichardtheSane wrote:
I've done a couple and combined them, but it didn't really work because my subject simply was not powerful enough

Practical Photography did a tutorial on this recently and I hope to trek to some more impressive falls over the coming week

Look forward to seeing some of yours

I believe I read that article too (couldn't remember where it was though until you mentioned it, but I know I read about it)...it produced some very dynamic results to layer fast and slow shutter shots of water. I'm not sure I liked them personally (leaning more towards the flowing water feel) but it was definitely different. Like you, I'm waiting until I get to a larger wfall to try it out.