Tired of water motion

Is it me or is anyone else tired of seeing water motion (the silky effect)?
It doesn't appeal to me anymore, maybe because every single photo magazine has 1 or more of those pics.

I agree.

The 2 most asked questions by new DSLR users (other than how do I change the shutter speed) are :

1 - How do I get the subject in focus with the background out of focus?
and
2 - How do I get the water to have that silky look?

I think both have been overdone both by newbies and professionals.

For me it depends on what I'm trying to show in the image. A calm, relaxing shot is more likely to have the long exposure silkiness while an image that I've captured in order to show power and force is more likely to be shot at a faster shutter speed, freezing the water with lots of detail...

Good point. If the silky water is part of the story you're telling, I agree its very effective.

But, I think the standard ground level picture that just shows silky water flowing over rocks in a stream is not really making any attempt to tell a story.

Except maybe that water flows downhill

I think it depends on the conent of the rest of the image but I do think it can look naff when the focus of the image is only some rocks and smoky or silky water around them.

WaltA wrote in post #5836699
Good point. If the silky water is part of the story you're telling, I agree its very effective.

But, I think the standard ground level picture that just shows silky water flowing over rocks in a stream is not really making any attempt to tell a story.

Except maybe that water flows downhill

Come one now....

It is a rite of passage, much like taking pictures of Ducks with your new 70-200 lens. Everyone does it at least once. :p

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who is tired of it. It seems that every photography book or magazine I pick up has at least one in it.

It was a clever trick about 10 years ago, but its now time to leave it alone for a few years, by which time a new generation of photographers will get very excited about this "new idea".

Richard

OK, I see your point. Someone should start a thread titled "The 100 boring stock images you have to take as a rite of passage".

1 - Duck
2 - Silky water
3 - your model-wife in field of flowers (oh sorry - thats just Bryan Peterson)
4 - .....

WaltA wrote in post #5836867
OK, I see your point. Someone should start a thread titled "The 100 boring stock images you have to take as a rite of passage".

1 - Duck
2 - Silky water
3 - your model-wife in field of flowers (oh sorry - thats just Bryan Peterson)
4 - .....

4. Long exposure of automotive taillights
5. Lone generic flower on a blurred background. (Rain/dew drop optional)
6...


Here you go Walt, don't say I never gave you anything!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=530159


HA!

6. f22 "starlight" exposure of street lamps at night with no thought to subject
7....

Vetteography wrote in post #5836944
4. Long exposure of automotive taillights
5. Lone generic flower on a blurred background. (Rain/dew drop optional)
6...

Here you go Walt, don't say I never gave you anything!

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=530159

HA!

OH MY GOD

I'LL BE POTN FAMOUS!!!!!

Pentaxis wrote in post #5836966
6. f22 "starlight" exposure of street lamps at night with no thought to subject
7....

7. Lightning over a cityscape
8....

I think there was a similar "cliche" thread not long ago. Pretty much every type of shot ended up on the list!

8. B & W photo with a bit of colour

Although such simple techniques should be used for educational purposes,
It's so true, however I got a trick question for you.

If such simple tricks are making you sick, what would you define as a rare or tricky technique?
In my eyes I consider good panning shots as a difficult thing without much experience, macro shots the same, and photos with vibrant colour attract my eyes however this can be a very simple task in any photo/scene.