Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Waterfalls - Part I Article

Reply
Thread Tools

Waterfalls - Part I Article

 
 
ron@ronbigelow.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
on my web at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm

Other articles can be found at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Ron Bigelow
http://ronbigelow.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
> waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
> issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
> on my web at:
>
> http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm


Am I the only one here who does not particularly like
long-shutter-speed pictures of waterfalls?
I never quite understood what is the appeal: once the water is reduced
to a uniform white stripe you loose all the dynamics of flying
droplets, whirlpools, rivulets etc.

This is just MHO of course.

Zip

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ih@ece.udel.edu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
I agree with you. I also thought I must be the only one who doesn't
like
the plastic look. However, all the teachings seem to point to longer
exposures.
Let's see how many agree with us.

Charles S. Ih

Me wrote:

> > http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm

>
> Am I the only one here who does not particularly like
> long-shutter-speed pictures of waterfalls?
> I never quite understood what is the appeal: once the water is reduced
> to a uniform white stripe you loose all the dynamics of flying
> droplets, whirlpools, rivulets etc.
>
> This is just MHO of course.
>
> Zip


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank Pittel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
I've found there to be an important balance in to long of an exposure
and to short of an exposure. If the exposure is to long the water
picks up a plastic look and loses all detail. If the exposure is to
short all you get are drops of water hanging in the air. The trick
is to get an exposure length that makes the water look as it's flowing
but doesn't lose the flying drops, whirlpools, etc.



(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: I agree with you. I also thought I must be the only one who doesn't
: like
: the plastic look. However, all the teachings seem to point to longer
: exposures.
: Let's see how many agree with us.

: Charles S. Ih

: Me wrote:

: > > http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm
: >
: > Am I the only one here who does not particularly like
: > long-shutter-speed pictures of waterfalls?
: > I never quite understood what is the appeal: once the water is reduced
: > to a uniform white stripe you loose all the dynamics of flying
: > droplets, whirlpools, rivulets etc.
: >
: > This is just MHO of course.
: >
: > Zip


--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> waterfalls.


Ron, I just wanted to say thanks for all your work on these
articles. I happen to have a waterfall conveniently close to my house,
so I'll definitely be making use of this series!

--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Ellwood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:29:02 -0700, Me wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
>> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
>> waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
>> issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
>> on my web at:
>>
>> http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm

>
> Am I the only one here who does not particularly like
> long-shutter-speed pictures of waterfalls?
> I never quite understood what is the appeal: once the water is reduced
> to a uniform white stripe you loose all the dynamics of flying
> droplets, whirlpools, rivulets etc.
>
> This is just MHO of course.
>
> Zip

You are not the only one - I feel the same. The long exposures of moving
water just leave pictures of cotton wool in your memory.
--
Neil
Delete l to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:16:06 -0500, Frank Pittel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I've found there to be an important balance in to long of an exposure
>and to short of an exposure. If the exposure is to long the water
>picks up a plastic look and loses all detail. If the exposure is to
>short all you get are drops of water hanging in the air. The trick
>is to get an exposure length that makes the water look as it's flowing
>but doesn't lose the flying drops, whirlpools, etc.
>
>
>
>(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: I agree with you. I also thought I must be the only one who doesn't
>: like
>: the plastic look. However, all the teachings seem to point to longer
>: exposures.
>: Let's see how many agree with us.
>
>: Charles S. Ih
>
>: Me wrote:
>
>: > > http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm
>: >
>: > Am I the only one here who does not particularly like
>: > long-shutter-speed pictures of waterfalls?
>: > I never quite understood what is the appeal: once the water is reduced
>: > to a uniform white stripe you loose all the dynamics of flying
>: > droplets, whirlpools, rivulets etc.
>: >
>: > This is just MHO of course.
>: >


To me it's a tiresome, at least 30 year old cliche and should be
refreshed -or dumped altogether.

Since most people use a tripod to get their 'platic flow' look, just
take another shot around 1/60th and blend the two in Photoshop to
recover the 'as you see it' look and a fainter smooth flow mist
superimposed (if one still wants it).

I nearly got de-frocked at our camera club for queerying the plastic
cliche. 20 or thirty years should be enough to remove any novelty in
it and recover the beauty of the dynamics of water droplets and flow.

Cheers, Tony.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jamie Dolan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
Ron,

Great Articles.

Thanks!

jamie

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>I have just posted Part I of a four part series on photographing
> waterfalls. The first article focuses on the basics of setting up for a
> waterfall shot. The subsequent articles focus on the more advanced
> issues encountered when shooting a waterfall. The article can be found
> on my web at:
>
> http://ronbigelow.com/articles/water...terfalls-1.htm
>
> Other articles can be found at:
>
> http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
>
> Ron Bigelow
> http://ronbigelow.com
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
Tony wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:16:06 -0500, Frank Pittel
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I've found there to be an important balance in to long of an exposure
>> and to short of an exposure. If the exposure is to long the water
>> picks up a plastic look and loses all detail. If the exposure is to
>> short all you get are drops of water hanging in the air. The trick
>> is to get an exposure length that makes the water look as it's flowing
>> but doesn't lose the flying drops, whirlpools, etc.

<< Snipped bits out >>
>
> I nearly got de-frocked at our camera club for queerying the plastic
> cliche. 20 or thirty years should be enough to remove any novelty in
> it and recover the beauty of the dynamics of water droplets and flow.
>


20-30 years?? Try way over a hundred. In some processes back then,
exposures even outdoors might be an hour or so. Probably weren't able to
catch a drop in their wildest dreams.

Wonder if the fact that for the first, say 50, years of long exposure
photogs cemented in this style....

--
John McWilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Schreiber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2006
Tony wrote:

> To me it's a tiresome, at least 30 year old cliche


You can find people who will feel that way about all kinds of
photographic subjects. Seems to me that to call something "cliche" is
itself becoming cliche.


--
www.ericschreiber.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WATERFALLS Forest Wanderer Digital Photography 18 11-15-2006 11:29 PM
Photo gallery of nature (water, mountains, waterfalls) and city (architecture, churches, door, windows) photography halexic@yahoo.com Digital Photography 1 08-05-2006 09:11 AM
Waterfalls - Part II Article ron@ronbigelow.com Digital Photography 0 07-19-2006 01:05 PM
Alabama Photographers, have you seen any of these waterfalls? szulecki@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 04-14-2006 09:57 PM
Alabama and Maryland Waterfalls szulecki@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 04-08-2006 12:21 AM



Advertisments