On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:13:34 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
As chance had it we went for a walk up a small river yesterday
afternoon. Not much to photograph and I didn't have an ND with me. I
did have my polarizer. So set the ISO as low as possible (100) and
slapped on the pol (which given the overcast allowed control of the
clouds reflecting in the water that an ND would not provide).
The first two:
http://tinyurl.com/8k3fn6u
http://tinyurl.com/8nqutyk
To me the second is more appealing. Not something I'd print however.
Then there was this -
http://tinyurl.com/9fqu3nv
But there was no good vantage point to capture the "S" bend well.
But other things that can be done with water is to look for currents
bearing blobs of foam and making streak patterns. This river wasn't
ideal (too much foam everywhere), but there were a couple nice pools.
http://tinyurl.com/9lpdylf
http://tinyurl.com/94za2eg
http://tinyurl.com/97e82lc
http://tinyurl.com/8bpco2n
http://tinyurl.com/9hoswyq
Too much happening to make those really nice, but you get an idea for
the effect. And the polarizer was essential to get rid of the clouds
reflecting in the water.
But in the end I can't help but feel that photographing moving water can
benefit from 'frozen', to slight movement to veils. In the end it's
impact of the image that count, not "what" or "how" it is done and not
whether some people deem it over done or too cliché.
Also had the most painful ever bite from a horsefly. Pain didn't
subside until this morning.
I think moving water should be blurred to some extent, lets you know it's
moving...
I found your foam pictures kind of dizzying!