Blurred water

qplate

qplate

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Edit My Images
Yes
I will probably be shot down in flames here, but here goes.

I have noticed that an increasing amount of photographs that contain water: ie, sea, lakes, rivers, etc, have the water content blurred. Sometimes to the point where you would have no idea it was water if a ship wasn't in the picture.

I have seen lots of how to do it type information, but my question is, why?

I appreciate that falling water as in waterfalls can benefit from a certain degree of blur sometimes, but why change the sea for example.

I'm fairly new to landscapes so there may be a perfectly good reason that I cant see (Probably is knowing me),
 
qplate said:
I'm fairly new to landscapes so there may be a perfectly good reason that I cant see (Probably is knowing me),
Click to expand...

Its nothing to do with you being new to Landscape Photography and everything to do with personal taste :)

Sometimes its perfectly good to have any water 'frozen' in time with a higher shutter speed, and sometimes it works best (even if only in the mind of the photographer that shot it) for it to be blurred either a bit, or so much as to become merely shades & tones

You are totally free to like, or hate, it either way; personally, I just like good images and if the blurring works well IMHO then I like it, just as I do with a frozen in time look

So don't worry about it

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Its nothing to do with you being new to Landscape Photography and everything to do with personal taste :)

Sometimes its perfectly good to have any water 'frozen' in time with a higher shutter speed, and sometimes it works best (even if only in the mind of the photographer that shot it) for it to be blurred either a bit, or so much as to become merely shades & tones

You are totally free to like, or hate, it either way; personally, I just like good images and if the blurring works well IMHO then I like it, just as I do with a frozen in time look
Click to expand...
It is one of those effects that has become overused though (IMO). It used to be an occasional aesthetic decision; now it appears that everyone wants to take images like that...
 
Eloise said:
It is one of those effects that has become overused though (IMO). It used to be an occasional aesthetic decision; now it appears that everyone wants to take images like that...
Click to expand...

It happened in the film days too - everything goes in & out of fashion = nothing wrong with that though :)

Dave
 
it can look great but over and over again can get boring , I know a few guys if they lost their 10 stop filter they pretty much wouldn't know what to point their camera at , which is a problem of leaning on the 1 technique too much
 
qplate said:
I will probably be shot down in flames here, but here goes.

I have noticed that an increasing amount of photographs that contain water: ie, sea, lakes, rivers, etc, have the water content blurred. Sometimes to the point where you would have no idea it was water if a ship wasn't in the picture.

I have seen lots of how to do it type information, but my question is, why?

I appreciate that falling water as in waterfalls can benefit from a certain degree of blur sometimes, but why change the sea for example.

I'm fairly new to landscapes so there may be a perfectly good reason that I cant see (Probably is knowing me),
Click to expand...
It's an over used and boring technique IMHO.

Occasionally you see an image that benefits, but most of the time it's a bunch of sheep following the current fad..
 
DG Phototraining said:
Its nothing to do with you being new to Landscape Photography and everything to do with personal taste :)

Sometimes its perfectly good to have any water 'frozen' in time with a higher shutter speed, and sometimes it works best (even if only in the mind of the photographer that shot it) for it to be blurred either a bit, or so much as to become merely shades & tones

You are totally free to like, or hate, it either way; personally, I just like good images and if the blurring works well IMHO then I like it, just as I do with a frozen in time look

So don't worry about it

Dave
Click to expand...

:agree:

Well said Dave, and proves just how subjective photography is, no right or wrong way to present an image with waterscapes in it or even cloudscapes.

I will go out with open view that if I end up doing seascapes then I can do both long exposure, short and experiment with shutter speeds and can choose what I like best back at home on the monitor.

The bottom line is you're outside enjoying yourself and taking images for yourself first and foremost and if others enjoy them then, then that's a bonus.
 
Trends come and go, someone produces an image that looks good for some reason, others see this and think they'll use the technique too... sometimes the results are great, sometimes not... a bit like 'tribute acts'! Then, as more people decide to use the technique it starts to lose its novelty and 'impact', gradually becoming a pastiche of itself to the point where it becomes 'naff'.

The use of strange coloured grad and 'special effects' filters in the 1980s is perhaps a case in point, with their use becoming two-a-penny.... but when was the last time you saw a tobacco coloured sky, a sepia toned colour shot, a keyhole shaped vignette, or a 4 pointed star emanating from a lighthouse and taking up a third of the frame? So don't worry too much, trends come and go.

My prediction for impending falls from grace: Over-processed landscape shots that look like no natural colours you've ever seen on this planet in an attempt to make them 'pop', and to (over)compensate for the rather ordinary lighting conditions that probably prevailed on the day they were taken! Heresy? Time will tell. :whistle:
 
Last edited:
With waterfalls/waves I think a bit of texture helps and anything over a second might be too long.
 
paul100 said:
:agree:

The bottom line is you're outside enjoying yourself and taking images for yourself first and foremost and if others enjoy them then, then that's a bonus.
Click to expand...

Brilliant, well said.
 
All you have to do to avoid this nasty misty blurred water effect is to shoot with a faster shutter speed.

Not many people know that :-)
 
It can work really well, look at Neil Burnell's superb seascapes, but I generally prefer to keep some motion in the water. I was watching a vlog yesterday where a photographer was by a very stormy sea, he said 'I'll whack a ten stop filter on, milk it out and it'll be great' - I thought he's missed the point as you want to see some of that force instead of a flat blur. Do what works for you though
 
When photography took off at the end of the 19th centuary painting moved on to impressionism and then abstraction, etc. I wonder if things like soft water are a reponse to the increasing ubiquity of decently quality mobile phone cameras? Shallow DoF, long lens, long exposure are things which can set a photo apart from the run-of-the-mill phone shot. You never know @Mr Badger we might see those effects filters coming back
 
sirch said:
You never know @Mr Badger we might see those effects filters coming back
Click to expand...

Ooo good, I hope so, I still have a few lurking somewhere at the back of my toy cupboard...

I can put them on eBay! :LOL: Joking aside, I'm not against the use of filters, effects, or post processing, as long as that genuinely improves the image and suits its mood and feel, and doesn't end up looking as if someone has tried too hard in an attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Someone mentioned above that enjoyment is a big part of photography, and I agree wholeheartedly with that and if it makes people happy to make every image of moving water to look like condensed milk, then fine. But that doesn't automatically make it a great image or guarantee people will (or be compelled by peer pressure to) like it.

Used at the right time (and in the right amount) such effects can really make a shot, at others they can ruin it; the art of knowing when is a significant part of the art of photography, as enjoyable or frustrating as that art may be. :)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Used at the right time (and in the right amount) such effects can really make a shot, at others they can ruin it; the art of knowing when is a significant part of the art of photography, as enjoyable or frustrating as that art may be. :)
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more, I think of all these things as tools in a tool box and half the battle is won if the correct tool is chosen for the job.
 
sirch said:
I couldn't agree more, I think of all these things as tools in a tool box and half the battle is won if the correct tool is chosen for the job.
Click to expand...

"I'm playing all the right notes... but not necessarily in the right order!". - Eric Morecambe. :D
 
Water is a fascinating subject that many different shutter speeds can be rendered beautifully. What shutter speed you use depends on taste experience the effect you would like.

IMO many people use shutter speeds that are far too long for waterfalls/rivers.

It would be good if the OP would show what they prefer.
 
Thanks for all the comments guys. I really appreciate the input.

I fully understand the fact that its 'each to there own' and what is pleasing to some folk will very probably not be to others.

From a personal perspective, I prefer to see the completed image of what I see through the viewfinder. I know that in the real world, what we see with our eyes is very rarely an image worth mounting on a wall for example, without some kind of post production intervention.

I'm not going to say that I don't like the blurred water images because its blurred water. I would just like to be able to see the water in the first place rather than some sort of milky cloud.

Its just personal opinion and thankfully we all have different ideas, otherwise life would be a bit boring.
 
DG Phototraining said:
It happened in the film days too - everything goes in & out of fashion = nothing wrong with that though :)

Dave
Click to expand...

In early film days, slow emulsions and relatively slow lenses made milky water pretty much the only option!

Not a fan of milky seas and waterfalls but, as said, each to their own!
 
Personal prefeence. Our milky water/flat sea prints and licences far out sell our other 'standard' water shots. So popular commercially.
 
Last edited:
momoka said:
Personal prefeence. Our milky water/flat sea prints and licences far out sell our other 'standard' water shots. So popular commercially.
Click to expand...

Many here have long been aware that the people who may buy pictures often think differently to 'photographers' about what makes a great or attractive image. General rule of thumb for getting interest on the internet is to make it bright, punchy, colourful and then preferably use HDR for that little bit extra. ;)

I wonder if we're like a bunch of guys that have found a crossroards with one track heading in the direction of art and the other towards popular interest, and we keep arguing about which one we should take. :p
 
ancient_mariner said:
Many here have long been aware that the people who may buy pictures often think differently to 'photographers' about what makes a great or attractive image. General rule of thumb for getting interest on the internet is to make it bright, punchy, colourful and then preferably use HDR for that little bit extra. ;)

I wonder if we're like a bunch of guys that have found a crossroards with one track heading in the direction of art and the other towards popular interest, and we keep arguing about which one we should take. :p
Click to expand...

We've sold a number of large images via stylists that were responsible for the full decor arrangements for the rooms they were placed in. Initialy at first you think 'Great they like our work' but then you see the other crap decisions thay have made with the decor and wondewr about it :)
 
Interesting point.
I did a short presentation at my local camera club and included a number of shots of a waterfall (all taken from the same position) in both colour and B&W.
Each image was displayed was 'frozen, 'transitory' and 'milky'.
In B&W, the popular choice was 'transitory' as "it represented a bit of movement".
In colour, the popular choice was 'milky' (strangely enough "because it complemented the colours in the woodland surround, yet was well defined")!!!
The 'frozen' votes were low for both colour and B&W.
At least I know what to submit in a Club Open comp in the coming year...
 
momoka said:
We've sold a number of large images via stylists that were responsible for the full decor arrangements for the rooms they were placed in. Initialy at first you think 'Great they like our work' but then you see the other crap decisions thay have made with the decor and wondewr about it :)
Click to expand...


The way I would look at that is that a quid is a quid and if someone's willing to give you some for what you regard as not your best/favourite shots, take it!!!
 
Nod said:
The way I would look at that is that a quid is a quid and if someone's willing to give you some for what you regard as not your best/favourite shots, take it!!!
Click to expand...
No that is not what I meant. I was trying to add humor. We only ever release work that we are happy with.
 
Mr Badger said:
Trends come and go, someone produces an image that looks good for some reason, others see this and think they'll use the technique too... sometimes the results are great, sometimes not... a bit like 'tribute acts'! Then, as more people decide to use the technique it starts to lose its novelty and 'impact', gradually becoming a pastiche of itself to the point where it becomes 'naff'.

The use of strange coloured grad and 'special effects' filters in the 1980s is perhaps a case in point, with their use becoming two-a-penny.... but when was the last time you saw a tobacco coloured sky, a sepia toned colour shot, a keyhole shaped vignette, or a 4 pointed star emanating from a lighthouse and taking up a third of the frame? So don't worry too much, trends come and go.

My prediction for impending falls from grace: Over-processed landscape shots that look like no natural colours you've ever seen on this planet in an attempt to make them 'pop', and to (over)compensate for the rather ordinary lighting conditions that probably prevailed on the day they were taken! Heresy? Time will tell. :whistle:
Click to expand...

Top Gear used lots of these affects. Like their lead presenter it seemed a bit stuck in the 80s
 
After I joined up to TP five or more years ago I noticed these questions appearing about 10-stop ND filters and the like - remember welding glass? I genuinely couldn't understand why people would want to slow down movement when for the entire history of photography photographers had been trying to stop movement! And then I realised it was a trend. As no doubt just about everybody else has said trends come and go, but this one seems to be staying the course. I even use it myself occasionally .... But it annoys me when people use a heavy ND filter in situations when you just don't need one; for example to slow down the movement in a waterfall when all you need is to use a shutter speed of about 1/2 second, which is quite easy to obtain on a dull day at about 100 ASA.

Before 10 stop ND's had become widely available landscape photographers used to wait till dusk to get the same effect or even go out at night. Now just about everyone has one but I'll bet there's a lot that are languishing at the back of a drawer somewhere!
 
jerry12953 said:
After I joined up to TP five or more years ago I noticed these questions appearing about 10-stop ND filters and the like - remember welding glass? I genuinely couldn't understand why people would want to slow down movement when for the entire history of photography photographers had been trying to stop movement! And then I realised it was a trend. As no doubt just about everybody else has said trends come and go, but this one seems to be staying the course. I even use it myself occasionally .... But it annoys me when people use a heavy ND filter in situations when you just don't need one; for example to slow down the movement in a waterfall when all you need is to use a shutter speed of about 1/2 second, which is quite easy to obtain on a dull day at about 100 ASA.

Before 10 stop ND's had become widely available landscape photographers used to wait till dusk to get the same effect or even go out at night. Now just about everyone has one but I'll bet there's a lot that are languishing at the back of a drawer somewhere!
Click to expand...

Mine does. I really like *some* images shot with a 10 stop, but to do that properly requires time, planning, having a tripod and going on a photoshoot without a non-photographer getting bored & fed up. Since that almost never happens I pretty much never get a chance to use my 10 stop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top