Should water look natural in photography?

[Angela Nicholson]

In the past I have mainly opted to freeze water movement, but recently I have really enjoyed using a Lee Filters Big Stopper 10EV ND filter to enable me to use very long exposures in daylight. Last week I shot a mixture of milky and natural seascapes in Devon. I just went with how I felt and what I thought the scene called for.

It's much easier to use very dense ND filters with digital cameras than with film because you can see if the results are what you want straight away.

[GeoffWessex]

I agree about the HDR - they can be truly awful, particularly by people who think they want haloes around everything and an overall 'cartoon look'. They can also be very good ..... Flickr has a group for 'Realistic HDR' - you can send them as many pictures as you like but they are, I'm glad to say, very picky. The only clue to a good HDR is when you get none of the 'artifacts' but have a better-looking exposure, which has details in both the shadows and the highlights. In many cases, layering of bracketed shots in Photoshop or similar works better. IMHO.

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by Angela Nicholson

In the past I have mainly opted to freeze water movement, but recently I have really enjoyed using a Lee Filters Big Stopper 10EV ND filter to enable me to use very long exposures in daylight. Last week I shot a mixture of milky and natural seascapes in Devon. I just went with how I felt and what I thought the scene called for.

It's much easier to use very dense ND filters with digital cameras than with film because you can see if the results are what you want straight away.

Yes, well put. Actually I'd say that using a standard ND filter on a film camera is not all that difficult - however many 'stops' of exposure that the filter decreases the light, just add it back with exposure compensation. ND Grad is a bit trickier but the same principle. It's that wait between firing the shutter and getting the proofs back that I couldn't stand now.

In the various camera club communities, you get lots of people (well, maybe 5%) that still want to tell us that "Digital is inferior to film". I've gradually built up a good list of arguments about why - despite a perceived lower quality - digital is, in so many areas, a far superior way to take photographs. Does an APS-C DSLR beat a 35mm SLR? I think that's a close-run thing now.... but I know which one I'd rather use.

[ABERS]

Those that are apparently 'in the know' have chosen yet another 'milky' water image for today's POTD. It gets to the stage that as soon as you look at the home page and see a repititious photograph you quickly move on without lingering to look, with a strong feeling of deja vu.

[GeoffWessex]

Yes, I know what you mean..... but it's difficult to see how that picture would have been anything other than 'very dull' if it had been taken with a 'normal' shutter speed, so it's probably the best achievable result in the circumstances.

It's the movement that gives the tonal values to the sea and the clouds - so you get a smooth transition of tones, without much in the way of shape. The people who make the best results with this kind of thing know just the right conditions, time of day etc, with the clouds moving towards the camera. Before the 'Big Stopper', the long exposures had to be achieved by taking the pictures in semi-darkness..... f/16 with a 3-stop ND. Now, I suppose you could take the picture at any time of the day.

[loweswood]

my view is that water should look however you want it to look. Its all about taste and preferences.

[Cathus]

ultimately, it doesn't matter, do you take photos for your own pleasure or for the acceptance of others?

take shots in a style that pleases you & don't worry about what others think. There is very little that is original in photography, whatever style or subject you use you well likely only be doing what others have done before.
Styles go round in circles.

I saw a slideshow of all the entries for this year's East Anglia Federation of Camera Clubs annual exhibition last week. These are supposed to be the best shots submitted by all the clubs in the region. It seems that if you submitted a shot which was so overly processed as to appear like a watercolour then you got accepted. I guess the that style is pretty favourable currently, not really photography as far as I'm concerned but there you go.

[AndyStevens]

As you say Cathus, what goes around comes around. Photography can become cyclical with 'styles' coming in and out of fashion - just look through mags from a couple of years ago. Perhaps I'll start using fast shutter speeds to freeze water and then infrared process them - could be the start of the next big thing

Again, shoot what pleases you - some images take milky water, others don't. As long as you like your images...

[Oldbearchris]

There are lots of different ways to photograph water. Sprays taken with a fast shutter speed, realistic at 1/40 sec, milky from a long exposure. The issue for me is that we're stuck in one particular style at the moment, and I personally find it very repetitive.

[GeoffWessex]

Originally Posted by Oldbearchris

There are lots of different ways to photograph water. Sprays taken with a fast shutter speed, realistic at 1/40 sec, milky from a long exposure. The issue for me is that we're stuck in one particular style at the moment, and I personally find it very repetitive.

I'd go along with that.



And from Cathus.... "ultimately, it doesn't matter, do you take photos for your own pleasure or for the acceptance of others?"..... well, for many people it's all about the acceptance of others - because they want to win competitions, sell their work directly, get published or have a regular 'earner' from a stock image site.