If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
River shots - yes, with blurred water time exposure.
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. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
River shots - yes, with blurred water time exposure.
On 2012-08-12 15:15 , RichA wrote:
On Aug 12, 10:13 am, Alan Browne wrote: 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. Demon: "Hmmm, intriguing...no, wait; BORING! Tear off his kneecaps!!" C'mon Rich - post a photograph instead. Blaze the trail for us. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
River shots - yes, with blurred water time exposure.
"RichA" wrote in message ... On Aug 12, 10:13 am, Alan Browne wrote: 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. Demon: "Hmmm, intriguing...no, wait; BORING! Tear off his kneecaps!!" -Buffy the Vampire Slayer If blurred water is too cliché, what about all those close-ups with blurred backgrounds? If you want to make an argument for overdone, that would be easier. Or, then there's the portrait with the hint of a shadow extending up, but not touching, the eye. Millions shot every year. Or, there's the ever-popular landscape with subject highlighted by shaft of light. Ask any landscape photographer worth his or her salt if their portfolio would be complete without such a shot, and I'm pretty confident I know what they'll say. The reason these "clichéic" shots are so prevalent is that they sell. So, like it or not, if you view the work of others, lighten up a bit and try to enjoy what you see. Take Care, Dudley |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
River shots - yes, with blurred water time exposure.
On 8/12/2012 5:15 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message ... On Aug 12, 10:13 am, Alan Browne wrote: 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. Demon: "Hmmm, intriguing...no, wait; BORING! Tear off his kneecaps!!" -Buffy the Vampire Slayer If blurred water is too cliché, what about all those close-ups with blurred backgrounds? If you want to make an argument for overdone, that would be easier. Or, then there's the portrait with the hint of a shadow extending up, but not touching, the eye. Millions shot every year. Or, there's the ever-popular landscape with subject highlighted by shaft of light. Ask any landscape photographer worth his or her salt if their portfolio would be complete without such a shot, and I'm pretty confident I know what they'll say. The reason these "clichéic" shots are so prevalent is that they sell. So, like it or not, if you view the work of others, lighten up a bit and try to enjoy what you see. Take Care, Dudley Music by Beethoven and Tchaikovsky can also be cliche, but millions of people listen and enjoy it every year. I guess some here are abot that. -- PeterN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
River shots - yes, with blurred water time exposure.
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|