Moving water

Rhodese

Rhodese

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,154
Edit My Images
Yes
What your views on slow shutter speed technique when photographing moving water, don’t you think it’s all so overdone? Does it really portray movement or is it a case of the emperors new clothes? personally I think it’s so naff.
 
I think it can be easily overdone.

Personally, i think it looks good with a shutter speed of around 1/4".
 
I like it, a view of something you don't see with the naked eye. In the 2D world of photography every little bit of artistry helps I think ;)
 
Personally I like the effect it can give.
I feel it can add to the soul of a picture when done nicely.

I have had a couple of tries myself but didn't nail it , then it just looked naff :lol:

Will keep on trying it though:thumbs:
 
I personally like the effect, I think it can give more atmosphere to a picture over a standard shot. However I do conceed that this effect can be overdone if the shutter speed is too long.
For me it needs to be enough to give the blurred water effect, yet short enough not to detract from the overall shot.
 
Rhodese said:
What your views on slow shutter speed technique when photographing moving water, don’t you think it’s all so overdone? Does it really portray movement or is it a case of the emperors new clothes? personally I think it’s so naff.
Click to expand...

Simple, if you think it's naff don't use it, or comment on pics taken with slow shutter speeds. You are entitled to your opinion of course.

Plenty of people, including me, like slow shutter speed pics as it does imply movement and takes a bit more skill to produce a quality pic than just freezing movement.
 
Perhaps I overstated my feelings using NAFF. Yes a slower shutter can add a little movement to ripples, but when it turns to a milky slush it just looks awful.
 
I think the occasional one is very 'arty' !
But if all water/seascapes were done using this technique then I'd soon get fed up with them - basically, they have their place.
 
Does anyone have any examples to post, be nice to see the effect your talking about :thumbs:
 
personally i like the slow shutter speed effect, but sometimes it is over used and just doesn't look right,
 
after the whole HDR thing i think that everybody is over the whole 'silky water' thing just because its something you nail inside of the camera rather than on photoshop .
 
Surely flowing water in a shot as a little like chili peppers. In some recipes it's needed, some will be ok with or without but if you're making apple pie, give it a miss.

Each image you make should be considered in it's own right .....no?
 
chewyuk said:
I'm sure that Ansel Adams thought exactly that ''NAFF'' when he produced this work ...

http://www.manhattanrarebooks-art.com/adams.images.htm
Click to expand...

Of course he didn’t, he was the creator the originator the one and only, people would have been gob smacked on seeing it, but on seeing the next one by someone else and another and another and so on it looses its originality and becomes mundane and tiresome like I said used liberally ok, but every time you take a moving water shot, come on. But I take your point and quietly except I might but only might be wrong.
 
I agree with Daz. Use it if it works better than not using it. Every composition needs to be thought through and as much of the picture needs to be captured by the camera as possible. If in doubt whats wrong with taking two versions - one with fast shutter and one with slow. See what works best when the pic is up on the screen. Rhodese I would just say that if you dont like the effect you might limit yourself by not even considering it when it might actually work.

Always keep an open mind otherwise you are in danger of putting blinkers on yourself.

By the way who is this Ansel Adams bloke anyway? ;-)
 
who is this Ansel Adams bloke anyway?
Click to expand...

He played some piano but never made the big time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top