Unnatural water (Page 4): Different strokes, Perhaps.. I favor a compromize. A touch of softness but with some detail. The goal of trying to show what the eye sees is not possible in...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Violameister wrote:

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

Different strokes, Perhaps.. I favor a compromize. A touch of softness but with some detail. The goal of trying to show what the eye sees is not possible in either event.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

O2Ra wrote:

The milky look would totally ruin this picture. Oddly I was thinking the same thing as the OP just yesterday. I believe there is a time and place for both but the milky look is getting over done

From what I have seen, people who are pros or as good as pros who make $$$ from photography, always produce milky waterfalls. I wonder why.

PS: than again I have no way of knowing who's pictures you are looking at.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

tdekany wrote:

From what I have seen, people who are pros or as good as pros who make $$$ from photography, always produce milky waterfalls. I wonder why.

PS: than again I have no way of knowing who's pictures you are looking at.

Have you ever considered that the average cellphone user will not take the time to replicate the "milky" effect in water movement. When they see one done that way, it looks new and different to them.

Supply and Demand, (for now at least.)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

GENorkus wrote:

Have you ever considered that the average cellphone user will not take the time to replicate the "milky" effect in water movement. When they see one done that way, it looks new and different to them.

Supply and Demand, (for now at least.)

Who is talking about cell phone users? The member I replied to uses a d7000.

On this site, in every single case that I have seen,when a member starts a thread of this type, the op is always a snap shot shooter - go figure

Brian in Whitby Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada

I see to recall bsck in the 60s this was considered revolutionary. I suppose it was but jow it is so routine, some photogrsphers condider it the only way to shoot watetfalls.

Some like tk freeze the action.

Neither is realistic. Thst is one of the strengths of photography; it allows the photographer to show the world in ways the average person does not see.

To see things differently is creativity.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

tdekany wrote:

Who is talking about cell phone users? The member I replied to uses a d7000.

On this site, in every single case that I have seen,when a member starts a thread of this type, the op is always a snap shot shooter - go figure

Got me on that thought. :?

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Brian in Whitby wrote:

I see to recall bsck in the 60s this was considered revolutionary. I suppose it was but jow it is so routine, some photogrsphers condider it the only way to shoot watetfalls...

I seem to remember back then was smooth water which showed motion, not the "milky" almost a cotton candy look we've seen in the past few years.

GAH1944 Loc: SW Mich.

Violameister wrote:

I agree with the OP. The clear majority of moving water photos these days involve some sort of fuzzy/blurry water using long exposure times. When I see with my eyes such moving water it certainly does not look like most photos. It doesn't look exactly like high shutter speed water photos either, but that look is closer to what I experience than the 'fuzzy' look.

The question is, why has this become so populat?

I'm in complete agreement with you Violameister. I understand " to each his own " but why is the " fuzzy look " shoved down or up , depending on perspective ? I'm off my soapbox, thanks :thumbup:

AnchorageAK

gvarner wrote:

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

This is the way I prefer my water. I just wish I could take better pictures.

(Download)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

AnchorageAK wrote:

I just wish I could take better pictures.

Study the great shots posted on line. There is no excuse these days not to be able to learn from the best. Look at photos that you favor and try to figure out how those were taken. Visit www.500px.com

TheDman Loc: USA

tdekany wrote:

From what I have seen, people who are pros or as good as pros who make $$$ from photography, always produce milky waterfalls. I wonder why.

PS: than again I have no way of knowing who's pictures you are looking at.

+1

My simple answer is, because it sells.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

TheDman wrote:

+1

My simple answer is, because it sells.

I think often the general public who don't know as much about photography is more accepting of things many photographers don't like, such as blurred water, high saturation, or extreme HDR.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

cjkorb wrote:

I agree, silky looking water in a photograph is becoming old. When I take a photo of a particular scene, I want it to look like as my eyes see it at that particular moment.

I am so tired of the smoky water effect. The problem is not with the technique itself; it's the fact that it's so overdone. I like the idea mentioned to get a little blur to recreate the motion without making it into an unrealistic smoke-fest.

Having said that, to each his/her own! >>> ALAN

DerBiermeister Loc: North of Richmond VA

AnchorageAK wrote:

This is the way I prefer my water. I just wish I could take better pictures.

You and I are on the same page! Your pics remind me exactly of the one I posted back on page 1.

Leitz Loc: Solms

gvarner wrote:

I generally don't like to see silky water pics using an ND filter. I prefer natural nature with spray and ripples and chaos in the flow. Perhaps most stream environments are too dark and freezing spray with a high shutter speed is not an option could explain why the ND option is so popular. If the distances aren't too great, a flash would certainly help.

I don't like them either, but rather than bitch, I simply don't look at them.