ViewFinder Star letter Issue119 Milky water sours

[AnneBennett]

Having just received the latest issue of Digital Camera, I read with interest the Star Letter. Having posted a similar topic on another forum some time ago. You ask' Is milky water a pleasing aesthetic enhancement or a crude and unnecessary distortion of nature'? I have to agree with Alex Brown, I don't understand why water 'has to be fiddled with'. I think it is at times a distortion of nature, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's crude. Some of the answers I received when I posed this question all seemed to agree, slowing down the water slightly made the image look less busy, but to slow it down too much made the image look overdone and milky. I note that the cover image on the latest magazine in my opinion the water has been slowed down/blurred too much I would rather have been able to look through some clear water.
Maybe at some time this fashion/fad might change?

[thefonz78]

It's room for both in my book. Sometimes you have no choice for milky water if it's low light and you want a large DOF.

[markgozz]

Really don't have a problem with the white or misty effect of slow water shots I think it can give a totally different feel to the image , yes if you want to capture a natural photo then that's fine speed thing up but if you want to play with nature and add an abstract look to it then that's fine too .

If everyone was to stop using this technique wouldn't that become a fashion or fad in itself ?

Mark

[jet_kit]

Whatever it takes to produce a pleasing image.
There are no 'Rights' & 'Wrongs'.
It's a nonsense to suggest that we shouldn't be interfering with 'nature', we do it all the time in PS or whatever PP software we use. We enhance or change colours, we sharpen or diffuse, we emphasize distortions or foreshorten perspective with our lens choice. We add effects, either by filtration or in software. We add blur to highlight the impression of speed. We freeze motion that the human eye cannot detect. We employ tricks all the time in the search of a better image and anyone who thinks we shouldn't needs to get out more.

[dan123]

I find that fast frozen water normailly looks awfull, And doing so just for the Sake of not using the misty water shots is a bit silly IMO, Im an advocate of Long exposures as they do tidy up the water and make it look better, Especially with seascapes, also helps improve Reflections,

The Eye when it looks at a river sees motion, Freezing it at 1/200th makes the water look static and un pleassing to the eye, Where as 1/4 has a slight blur and the picture shows the movemnt of the water like the eye would, and this to me lookss more natural

[mondmagu]

Both styles can work depending on the shot you are looking for.Milky water can look really nice once it's not over done and natural looking water can look good also,for example,a partly frozen river or lake looks better with natural water flow than a milky effect.

Des