to blur or not to blur

WaterfallRich

I like the silky effect that slower shutter speeds have on medium to small waterfalls and moving water in general, but I know some folks don't. Just curious on other peoples' thoughts on this, or feel free to post examples. I took this next one at 1/30 second at f4. The water is somewhat blurry, but I tried to make it the same as I thought my eye was seeing it.



For this next one, I stacked an ND on top of the polarizer to get 1/2 sec at f6.3 -



I like to try to retain some detail in the water flow, so I avoid speeds slower than 1 second in most situations. Thanks for responding!

Harryb

Hey Rich,

#2 does it for me. I definitely prefer it over the first shot.

gus

Harryb wrote:

Hey Rich,

#2 does it for me. I definitely prefer it over the first shot.

Me also...you need the show of movement.

DavidTO

yep, #2

Higgmeister

Hi Rich,
I'm going to go with the non-committal answer of "it depends on what you wish to convey". With the faster shutter speeds, I get more of a feeling of turbulence and action whereas the slower speeds have a great tranquil feel to them. So, if one whats to show the power of Mother Nature, shoot faster and if you want a peaceful scene, shoot slower. Of course, these are just generalizations.

For me, #2 is works because the surrounding scene is calming.

Just my .025 (inflation),
Chris

MarkS

Hi

Just want you to know that there is no right or wrong except how you feel . I prefer shot one. I sometimes feel that motion is over used in waterfall pictures it seems that is all i see. I personally try to take a few of each and then make up my mind but I usually tend to like the crisper clearer shots.I think the first shot is really nice because the closer edge is nice and sharp while the back portion is softer with motion.

Just my personal preference and I seem to be in the minority

Mitchell

For me, you can't beat the silky smooth, tranquil effect of a long (>2 sec) exposure of a waterfall.

WaterfallRich

MarkS wrote:

Hi

Just want you to know that there is no right or wrong except how you feel . I prefer shot one. I sometimes feel that motion is over used in waterfall pictures it seems that is all i see. I personally try to take a few of each and then make up my mind but I usually tend to like the crisper clearer shots.I think the first shot is really nice because the closer edge is nice and sharp while the back portion is softer with motion.

Just my personal preference and I seem to be in the minority

Hey Mark - Thanks for your and everyone else's response. I went back and forth on this particular scene, but chose the slower shutter speed to post. I like the effect and use it to death, but in some situations I don't have a choice. I like to shoot the falls on overcast days for a more even, less harsh lighting. The combo of less light and always shooting the falls with a polarizing filter sometimes dictates using a slower shutter speed. It is personal preference, like you said. I don't particularly like speeds of a couple or more seconds where the water flow is a total white out.

You do bring up a very good point. There needs to be almost a dead calm for the foliage in the scene to look sharp. Also, any slight movement of the camera will cause the image to be soft at the slower shutter speeds. I'm going to try to hit Linville Falls tomorrow that will look better shot at faster shutter speeds. It has a higher volume of water than the one shown here. If I get anything decent, I'll try to post some more samples. Thanks for adding a vote for image #1

WaterfallRich

Mitchell wrote:

For me, you can't beat the silky smooth, tranquil effect of a long (>2 sec) exposure of a waterfall.

Hey Mitchell! I love that shot - I think I had seen it in another post. You still have a lot of detail in the water flow that shows off the 'mini falls' that make up the waterfall.

Nikolai

#2, Rich, definitely #2
I don't know about others, but for waterfalls "silky smooth" is da effect I want:-)
Love your work!
Cheers!

jogle

Mitchell wrote:

For me, you can't beat the silky smooth, tranquil effect of a long (>2 sec) exposure of a waterfall.

This one really does it for me as your eye is drawn away from the big sprays of water and you focus on the little cascading bits. I've always felt that the slow shutter speed waterfalls give more depth to an image.

auraflora

Lovely velvety water fall. Great colors and composition.


Michal

Mitchell

Thanks for the nice comments,

Rich, what do you feel is the "ideal" shutterspeed for waterfalls? My pic was taken at f20 and 3 seconds. I used a +1 ND filter. I have taken several others with shutterspeeds over 5 and 6 seconds. These look really dreamlike, but loose the sense of power and motion in the water.

WaterfallRich

Mitchell wrote:

Thanks for the nice comments,

Rich, what do you feel is the "ideal" shutterspeed for waterfalls? My pic was taken at f20 and 3 seconds. I used a +1 ND filter. I have taken several others with shutterspeeds over 5 and 6 seconds. These look really dreamlike, but loose the sense of power and motion in the water.

Hey Mitchell! For me and my camera (Sony 717), it's 1/4 to 1/2 second - usually. This all depends on the lighting. My ideal lighting (if you don't have to include the sky in the image) is light to medium overcast. It's a nice even lighting and helps reduce blown highlights in the water. I always shoot waterfalls with a polarizer for this reason - http://www.pbase.com/waterfallrich/polarized_sample_images

With overcast lighting, I can usually get that shutter speed range without adding an ND filter. Today I shot a falls in the whole range of lighting and also had to add an ND filter, but on a lot of shots I didn't go for the silky look. I have shot in dark overcast and really late in the day and had to slow the speed down to the 2-3 second range. I don't know much about the technical side of photography, but my guess would be that the same silky look might be achieved with different shutter speeds in different cameras. Anybody that knows some stuff is welcome to correct me or expand on that if it is true.

I really like your shot above. It still retains detail in the falls. Much slower than that and I think the water would be a total white out. If there is a lot of water in the falls, it might be a total white out anyway, or too much white like in parts of the polarized samples in the above link. You're right - it does look kinda dreamy and I like it in some images I have seen from other folks. My theory is to shoot a lot of shots at different settings and different angles and hope something comes out OK. I shot about 130 images of this waterfall today - still have to sort through them and will post something later if I can find some good ones.