[rod_grant]

There is a thread on moving water.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/26-mini-challenges-games-photo-stories/17...ing-water.html


There is a bit of discussion from about page 31 and some examples of the same waterfalls at different shutter speeds.
It is really a matter of choice; silky smooth milky stuff or splashing bubbly frothy stuff.

[dms]

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion. Personally, I am much more impressed with scattered drops crisply frozen in place. I prefer the water to look like water, not some strange liquid concoction. I realize this is not a common opinion, but all the more reason to put it out there.

This statement also expresses my feelings.
I don't view the observation/opinion as a negative comment about any particular photograph/photographer's intent. Rather a comment that it almost seems obligatory (in recent decades) to use a long exposure to smooth/make milky the water, and (thus) it may be a cliche when used without due consideration!

[dakight]

Water is a clear liquid and I prefer it to look like a clear liquid. I don't like the syrupy, milky look so I tend to use moderate shutter speeds that give the water a fluid look without smearing out all the features and structure. But, that's just me; other viewpoints are equally valid.

[stevebrot]

There are so many approaches. What I have found useful is to carefully watch the motion and determine the speed at which the water is moving. Using that as a gauge you may be able to get a good sense of what the effect will be at different speeds. Here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

• Smooth flow results in smooth lines when blurred
• Water falls are usually accompanied by spray that will scatter additional light on a long exposure
• Fully frozen motion often looks like no motion
• In turbulent water there is almost always one or more portions that are completely or almost stationary. The trick is to find a shutter speed that will blur some portions and stop others.
• Rapidly flowing water may yield interesting textures at moderately slow speeds

I like to leverage the last two points. Below is an example of partial stop of turbulence at 1/13s.



Here is an example of texture. This is a film shot and I have no record of the shutter speed, though I believe it was probably about 1/10s.




And this one is just simply limited blur. The curl was intermittent, and the exposure was timed to trace the surge for only about 4-6" of travel (1/26s).




The cool thing is that with a digital sensor you are free to experiment and hone your craft. Have fun


Steve

[civiletti]

Shutter speed is the key and the Tv mode is strongly recommended. There are however two schools: slow shutter speed and high-shutter speed. The former, slow shutter speed, has been discussed by earlier posts here. I use the second approach: high shutter speed. I prefer to capture bubbles and droplets, frozen in the action. I posted a couple of examples at:
hcc's Album: Air-water flows - PentaxForums.com

For this type of shooting, you need relatively good lighting and a shutter speed of 1/200s minimum, preferably above 1/1,000 s. This technique is also used for breaking waves and surfers, although it works very nicely with dam spillways, waterfalls and fountains.

Hope that the comment may help.

That is an interesting approach. It would not be easy to integrate into usual landscape strategy: low iso and high depth of field. Also, places with hard-running water are often in the shade.

[osv]

I just don't get the fascination with long exposures of flowing water. The effect is becoming a cliche in my humble opinion.

it's played out, right up there with using a piece of dead wood or a rock as foreground in a landscape... but every now and then somebody pulls it off, and it looks decent.

at 1/2000th, these droplets tell the story of where the board has been.

[arnold]

at 1/2000th, these droplets tell the story of where the board has been

Way to go. Action on and in the water.

[rod_grant]

I love that osv!

[osv]

thanks, i got really lucky with manual focus on that one, it's pretty sharp... check it out full-size on flickr, if you like surf shots.

[fredralphfred]

. . . I prefer the water to look like water, not some strange liquid concoction. . .

Water is a strange liquid concoction. How many other compounds float when solid?

[Rondec]

I guess my preference is to be somewhere in the 1/10 second to 1 second range. You usually get some flowing effect, but it isn't as pronounced as a 20 second exposure with an ND filter. As to whether or not you would need an ND filter, it really depends on your light levels. In the middle of the day, probably so. Early morning, a circular polarizer would be sufficient to slow your shutter speed down to where you want it.

On the subject of whether long exposures of waterfalls are over done, maybe so, but at this point most everything is a cliche. It ends up being a matter of taste and whether or not the photographer can bring anything else to the photograph that will draw the viewer in. I don't personally like waterfall photos shot with short shutter speeds. It usually says to me that the photographer just couldn't be bothered to bring a tripod along...

(8 seconds)



(1/6 second).

[othar]

As others have stated you can either freeze the movement of water to count the singel droplets or turn waterfalls into hazes. In between these extremes everything is possible depending on your preferences. I usually use shutter speeds between 1/30 sec up to 20 sec for rivers with smaller cascades depending on my object. It's probably not in your controll but overcast days work best for slow shutter speeds. I usually use ND filters between 3 and 6 stops for smaller rivers, depending on your depth of field a 9 or 10 stop filter might be too much for the desired effect (if you don't have filters in that range you can try to simulate them with multiple exposures)

Water is a strange liquid concoction. How many other compounds float when solid?

I might sound like a wise ass, but although I agree with your first sentece the solid form of water would be ice, so i guess you mean: how many other substances are floating at ambient temperatures (excluding wintertime)

On the subject of whether long exposures of waterfalls are over done, maybe so, but at this point most everything is a cliche. It ends up being a matter of taste and whether or not the photographer can bring anything else to the photograph that will draw the viewer in. I don't personally like waterfall photos shot with short shutter speeds. It usually says to me that the photographer just couldn't be bothered to bring a tripod along...

+1

at 1/2000th, these droplets tell the story of where the board has been.

Sport and action photography in the water is a different kind of beast, therefore I certainly prefer quick shutter speeds.
Nice picture by he way.

[normhead]

I shoot at many shutter speeds and decide after which I like. I tend to like a little faster than has been sugested. 1/8 is usually my target speed for showing water flow. But after shooting many exposures on this waterfall, 1/13 was the one I like best. Fast enough to maintain some of the sense of violence while still concentrating on the flow.



This one at 1/60 was fast enough to pretty much freeze the action. I had images taken at up to 1/800 sec and as slow as a half second, but these are the ones I kept. I prefer to make the decision on whether to show frozen action or current flow at home, as you can see the effects of neither in the field.



There's a few more examples and discussion here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/300650-abstract-barro...ml#post3326252

[mikeSF]

it's played out, right up there with using a piece of dead wood or a rock as foreground in a landscape... but every now and then somebody pulls it off, and it looks decent.

at 1/2000th, these droplets tell the story of where the board has been.

you can't shoot surfing at anything less than a fast shutter, so frozen water is an appropriate look for this type of action.

[osv]

you can't shoot surfing at anything less than a fast shutter, so frozen water is an appropriate look for this type of action.

yes, fast shutter for surfing and waves is the only thing that makes sense to me, but people will try to break the rules... sometimes it actually works.

#7 and #14, the first shot succeeds at some level? why chop off the head tho: FSTOP: MAY 2015 | SURFLINE.COM

#1 and #10, the latter is what we call corduroy to the horizon, it's actually quite stunning, looks like a slower shutter slow pan shot?: FSTOP: JULY 2015 | SURFLINE.COM