Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
overdone.

So don't do it.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 8/10/2012 3:02 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective in
the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
overdone.

So don't do it.


You beat me to it.

--

PeterN

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Bob

On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Of course he's not right.

Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
don't, that's fine too.

Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 11/08/2012 10:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Of course he's not right.

Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
don't, that's fine too.

Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.


Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to
express what the photographer sees.

I like to see dynamics in water, always have. That white fluffy stuff
has its place, its something to lift an image and separate the water
from the background but it has problems in long exposures where movement
of trees/ferns detract.

On 2012-08-11 09:49 , Rob wrote:
On 11/08/2012 10:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Of course he's not right.

Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
don't, that's fine too.

Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.


Horses for courses. Its an individual thing and calling the shot to
express what the photographer sees.

Exactly my point.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:43:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: : overdone.
: :
: : So don't do it.
:
: Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
:
: Of course he's not right.
:
: Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
: do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
: don't, that's fine too.
:
: Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
: fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for
my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I
ridiculed it long before Rich did.

Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
currently posting on Usenet. It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
encouraged.

Bob

On 2012-08-11 11:19 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:43:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
: wrote:
: : On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: : Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: : using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: : in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: : overdone.
: :
: : So don't do it.
:
: Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.
:
: Of course he's not right.
:
: Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
: do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
: don't, that's fine too.
:
: Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
: fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Foolish or not, I'll assume whatever responsibility you care to assign me for
my opinion. I think blurry water usually looks silly, even tacky. I believe I
ridiculed it long before Rich did.

It has been ridiculed many times in the past, long before the internet
gave voice to the ill informed such as Rich and the easily influenced as
yourself.

Denunciation of the stylistic decisions that artists make long predates anyone
currently posting on Usenet.

There ya go!

It's not inconsistent with artists' right to do
what they want to do. And the widespread notion, currently in vogue, that
something is good art just because the "artist" says it is, should not be
encouraged.

Who claimed that? What I object to is that anyone should say what an
artist or photographer should or should not do. Rich should not. You
should not.

That doesn't mean you're forced to like it or approve of it. And like
Rich, your approval or not of it is absolutely meaningless.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.