Running Water

dekeyboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,726
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
Yes
Why is it that when the majority of people see running water, they have to take a photo with a long exposure?
 
Same reason that people were almost fighting each other for Lee big stoppers a while back. And I'm afraid I gave in and did a few longer exposures only on Friday. :oops: :$
 
Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
Apparently it's the new "in" thing to dislike.
C'est la vie.
 
Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
Apparently it's the new "in" thing to dislike.
C'est la vie.


Yes I like both the water drops frozen with a fast shutter speed works well with some scene's but so does milky water, it depends what you like
to be honest tho I always have just done what I like not bothered if its unfashionable:D
 
Last edited:
Why is it that when the majority of people see running water, they have to take a photo with a long exposure?

Like many things - fad or fashion. Very occasionally someone produces a masterpiece with the effect. Many moons ago it was these bloody starburst filters.
 
At my age, the sight of running water makes me want to go to visit the bathroom. :oops: :$
 
I like the effect but not over done. I like to see SOME movement but detail at the same time. Like Rob said "I like milk on my cornflakes not in my waterfalls".

For me seeing waterfalls/rivers shot with a fast shutter speed is the same as completely milking it. I do like seeing water shot quickly with stuff like water sports and waves crashing over piers for example.
 
Maybe people like doing it, so who are we to say what someone should or shouldnt do with their photography? People like long exposures...so what. How does it actually affect anyone else on here in a negative way. I dont think the people that do it are trying to pass it off as something new, so whats the problem?
 
Maybe people like doing it, so who are we to say what someone should or shouldnt do with their photography? People like long exposures...so what. How does it actually affect anyone else on here in a negative way. I dont think the people that do it are trying to pass it off as something new, so whats the problem?


Hi Nick. Nobody has said it is good or bad. Or it affects anyone in a negative way. And nobody said it was a problem. A question was asked and some people replied in a calm manner.
You obviously stubbed your toe on the table leg just before replying to this thread. I hope it gets better soon, and you reply in a much better mood next time.
Thank you for your effort.
 
Maybe people like doing it, so who are we to say what someone should or shouldnt do with their photography? People like long exposures...so what. How does it actually affect anyone else on here in a negative way. I dont think the people that do it are trying to pass it off as something new, so whats the problem?


Hi Nick. Nobody has said it is good or bad. Or it affects anyone in a negative way. And nobody said it was a problem. A question was asked and some people replied in a calm manner.
You obviously stubbed your toe on the table leg just before replying to this thread. I hope it gets better soon, and you reply in a much better mood next time.
Thank you for your effort.

Someones being a tad over sensitive there sweetheart. My reply wasn't angry, and no I haven't stubbed my toe. If you dont have a problem with it, why question the motives of others. If you dont have an issue, the answer to your openning post is pretty simple really. People do it because they like the effect or want to try a technique they have seen in a forum or in a magazine. Ultimately, they like it.
 
Why is it that when the majority of people see running water, they have to take a photo with a long exposure?
I'd say why not?

We only really have two options - we can freeze the droplets, or we can smooth the flow. Neither is how we actually see a waterfall, so neither intrinsically good/bad, right/wrong. It's all about the impression to convey - the frozen look may convey action or drama (especially if a leaping salmon obliges as the shutter is open!), and the long exposure may suggest more tranquility.

To me it's the same question as why do people use small apertures when others shoot wide open, it's just an artistic choice. Vive la difference and all that.
 
Not my thing, personally, I prefer to capture water sharp and crisp, but if people like it, then why not? I sometimes see someone using some technique or effect and think I'd like to have a go at that, so give it a try (with varying degrees of success!). Currently thinking of giving focus stacking a go, for example, so I suspect that's the way of it with fluffy water shots ... they're produced by people who've "seen it done, so thought I'd try it". That is, after all, how we learn and expand our skills, and find out what we like and don't like (and, of course, how retailers of filters, software, gadgets, tripods and related photographic ephemera, make a living .....!!) Each to their own.
 
Not my thing, personally, I prefer to capture water sharp and crisp, but if people like it, then why not? I sometimes see someone using some technique or effect and think I'd like to have a go at that, so give it a try (with varying degrees of success!). Currently thinking of giving focus stacking a go, for example, so I suspect that's the way of it with fluffy water shots ... they're produced by people who've "seen it done, so thought I'd try it". That is, after all, how we learn and expand our skills, and find out what we like and don't like (and, of course, how retailers of filters, software, gadgets, tripods and related photographic ephemera, make a living .....!!) Each to their own.


A very sensible reply. Thank you.
 
Why is it that when the majority of people see running water, they have to take a photo with a long exposure?

I do that even in bathroom, but some angles can be tricky :p

I am surprised nobody posted this so far.
 
Back
Top