Discussion in 'Nature & Wildlife' started by jocose, Jul 28, 2009.
Yikes, did you get a soaker getting this shot?
This one holds my interest, looking at the colour of the corroded metal, the shadow from the stone at the far left, the one silver part of the grate amidst the orangey ones, and of course that rushing water. The bits of debris washed up on the grate give the image even more visual interest. Nicely spotted.
It would have looked better if you did a longer exposure to allow the water to flow, rather than freezing it. But with how bright it was, you would have needed a stop-down filter to do this.
^^^ I guess that would be artistic interpretation, wouldn't it? (The creamy look to a long exposure of running water is indeed nice, but it's not what a person present at the scene would have actually observed. Just my two cents....)
I am personally getting a bit tired of the long exposure water shot. The first thing I liked about this photo is the fact that it is an in-between shot. Not creamy-look (?) but not frozen either.
And then, I can only repeat what Antarctican said in his first post.
So they would have seen frozen water then?
I think what Anty means is that it's artistic choice whether you want to blur or stop the motion. There's no requirement to do long exposures when taking pictures of water.
No one said that there was a requirement. I was just suggesting it may look better than freezing it. It's not my picture, so I don't really care.
Josh, I apologize. I think I may have misread the tone of your email to Antarctican. It's hard to read inflection in email. I appreciate your comments and suggestions, so please forgive me if I read more into your comments than you meant.
No worries. I was just trying to offer suggestions.
and I do appreciate it
And you would have needed a stop-down filter as dark as mud to do it in this lighting. So like I mentioned previously, it wouldn't have been practical for this shot. It just would have been an interesting view on it.
Separate names with a comma.