Should waterfalls go with the flow?

[Actinia]

I have never been convinced that pictures of waterfalls should be taken over a long exposure to blur the water.

Last month I went on the famous waterfall walk at Ingleton in Yorkshire (UK) which has a series of falls. I did not take paraphernalia such as a tripod or even an ND filter; the walk was arduous enough without these. I took several pairs of shots of individual waterfalls, one with a short an exposure as I could manage, and another with one as long as I could manage hand-held.

These are not at all my best pics (or even particularly good ones), just the pair with the biggest difference in exposure time. The first was 1/15th at f/22, and the second was 1/250 at f/10, both with ISO of 800. These are more-or-less as they came from the camera with no post-processing other than cropping and resizing.

Just looking at the water, I much prefer the second which, I feel, shows the activity of the water much more than the first. Does anyone else share my opinion?

 

[bribrius]

thinking f10 to f22 is a big jump. But on subject.

some photos seem to be captured for the purpose of how it really was at that time, settings adjusted accordingly.
other photos are captured with a certain artistic license allowing for making the shot look better than it really was or to add whatever desired effect.

I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer here, other than what you desire for the image.
This doesn't just include shutter speed but also lights/darks shadows, iso and about everything else along with post processing on if you want the image to correspond to what you actually saw or be a interpretation of what you saw with artistic license and effect.

 

[Derrel]

I agree with your opinion; the 1/250 second exposure shows the waterfall accurately, and realistically. The short shutter time allows us to observe and evaluate the ACTUAL flow and clarity/color of the water, as it was. It is an honest, straightforward rendering of the scene, and at the time of year it was made, "that" is what the water's flow and clarity looked like. I feel that there is a range of good exposure times for most waterfalls where the image looks "realistic" and also "honest". At the opposite end are the 10-stop Neutral Density shots where the color/clarity and volume of the water is obscured, and also, the shape and characteristic of the underlying stream bed is grossly distorted; small bits of spray become big, billowy poofs of water. Any discoloration of the water, such as browning of the water due to tannic acid from autumn leaves, or discoloration due to dissolved soil sediment, and so on, tend to be greatly eliminated by long,slow exposures.

What has happened over the last decade is the 500px phenomenon, where noob landscapers all have acquired the same lenses, the same tripods, the same cameras, and the SAME, exact neutral density filters, and they go to the same,identical waterfalls, and shoot the same boring crap with 30-second exposures, as a way to "build more water volume" by showing 30 seconds' worth, or one full minute's worth of flow as a big, fuzzy, distorted blurry mess of water. It's become a hardware-caused cliche that is just about as tiresome as selective color. When used on ocean water, the effect is even worse...flat, formless, single-tone expanses of blah. No waves...just flat, painted-looking expanses of...nothing...

There is a range, a gamut, between the ultra-fast speeds that freeze every single little micro-droplet, in the 1/16,000 to 1/2000 second range (and which often looks VERY ugly and weird!!); good stoppage in the 1/1000 to 1/350 range; then there is wide range where most motion is stopped, yet there is still some blurring that is very subtle, yet which helps to show the water is indeed moving, say 1/250 to 1/50 second; at slower speeds in the 1/40 to 1/8 second the overall feeling is of movement yet with the actual character of how the water flows over the rocks preserved; below 1/8 second, the water becomes more and more "in-motion", down to perhaps 1 second. As the seconds mount up, the actual nature and character of the water's flow and movement becomes more and more distorted and inaccurate. By 30 seconds, the nature of the water appears highly artificial, and on really long time exposures, the effect is decidedly cheesy, in most cases. Keep in mind, in the USA, the most-popular wall painting is Dogs Playing Poker. More copies of that have been sold than of any other "painting". So, tastes vary, tremendously, when "art" is the subject at hand.

There are different ways to approach waterfalls and moving water, with the lowest-common-denominator idea today often being the idea that that using a 10-stop ND filter will somehow make every landscape seem somehow more dramatic, but again, it's really kind of a cheesy hardware crutch that many noobs become enamored of. Like buying a "prime lens" and shooting everything "wide-open" But whatever, right? If you can do it, then do it! Right? Shoot everything at f/1.8! Get that awesome bokeh! Slap on that Big Stopper and make some Instant Art!

 

[astroNikon]

with waterfalls people like the looks of them from about 3 seconds and then much longer ones, say 10, 20 seconds or more, depending exactly on how "fluffy" you want the water to be all the way to the "misty, flat" look.

 

[jsecordphoto]

lol @ paraphernalia. I suppose it's all personal taste but to me those look like snapshots that anybody with an iphone could take. That's fine if that's the look you're going for, and I understand what Derrel is saying about everybody just throwing an ND filter on and running 30 second exposures. Motion blur doesn't make a good photo, but I don't find shooting waterfalls at 1/250 or whatever to look particularly good. Those photos look like they were taken in midday light as well, which doesn't help.

I tend to shoot waterfalls at around 1" or so btw. Get that sense of motion without the water looking like one giant highlight

 

[D-B-J]

lol @ paraphernalia. I suppose it's all personal taste but to me those look like snapshots that anybody with an iphone could take. That's fine if that's the look you're going for, and I understand what Derrel is saying about everybody just throwing an ND filter on and running 30 second exposures. Motion blur doesn't make a good photo, but I don't find shooting waterfalls at 1/250 or whatever to look particularly good. Those photos look like they were taken in midday light as well, which doesn't help.

I tend to shoot waterfalls at around 1" or so btw. Get that sense of motion without the water looking like one giant highlight

I think that shooting waterfalls of long exposures PROPERLY makes an image a true piece of art rather than an iPhone snap. Maybe it's just me, but I've never seen a 1/250th type exposure of a waterfall and been awestruck. But I've seen 15second exposures that blow me away. Long exposures are a tool, and like many, are often over-used or mis-used.

Jake

 

[xzyragon]

With a long exposure + ND filter or a shorter freeze of motion, composition is still the key element. My philosophy is that when I'm doing a long exposure shot, my composition has to be interesting without the added exposure. Adding in the motion blur should just be an effect, and not make or break a picture (in most cases).

 

[JerryVenz]

Derrel,

DOGS PLAYING POKER is the most popular "art" in the U.S.?

Please let that just be a joke…..My opinion of the public was already so low with the popularity of the endless series of Thomas Kinkade art….

 

[Actinia]

Thanks for your comments and opinions. I am very much an amateur photographer, with no pretensions as to what is 'art' (though I would draw the line on Dogs Playing Poker). I do have the paraphernalia, but I would not take them on a day out with my wife and daughter. I was taking lots of photographs of these waterfalls because my wife likes waterfalls. Many of them have now appeared on my screen background. As I said, the ones I posted are not at all my best pics (or even particularly good ones), but were selected to make a specific point. They were not there for C&C on my ability as a photographer. Ironically, what I would consider my best pics are similar to hundreds of others taken at Ingleton's best-known waterfall: Thornton Force.

I think that Derryl has summed it up well.

 

[runnah]

Yeah there is the butter zone. Slow enough to get a bit of blur but fast enough not to make it look like smoke.

I do like slow exposures for water falls as it highlights all the little flows not just the big one.

 

[Braineack]

so is no one going to mention the horizon line?

 

[JoeW]

so is no one going to mention the horizon line?

Yep--beat me to it.

Also, I agree with the earlier post...there's no one right way to always shoot something. Are you attempting to "capture" the scene (i.e.: take a snapshot) or are you attempting to create a photograph? If you're trying to create a photograph, then you're taking artistic license. You compose to include or exclude certain elements. You choose where to put the horizon, what angle to make the falls, what the viewer's perspective should be, if it's a limited DoF or not, if you highlight the falls or integrate it into the surroundings.

I'm not big on star trails but I understand and respect the people who do good work with that concept. Myself, I like playing with flowing water (either freezing it sharply in mid-air or letting it blur). But that's me and my artistic vision of water.

 

[waday]

I agree with your opinion; the 1/250 second exposure shows the waterfall accurately, and realistically. The short shutter time allows us to observe and evaluate the ACTUAL flow and clarity/color of the water, as it was. It is an honest, straightforward rendering of the scene, and at the time of year it was made, "that" is what the water's flow and clarity looked like. I feel that there is a range of good exposure times for most waterfalls where the image looks "realistic" and also "honest". At the opposite end are the 10-stop Neutral Density shots where the color/clarity and volume of the water is obscured, and also, the shape and characteristic of the underlying stream bed is grossly distorted; small bits of spray become big, billowy poofs of water. Any discoloration of the water, such as browning of the water due to tannic acid from autumn leaves, or discoloration due to dissolved soil sediment, and so on, tend to be greatly eliminated by long,slow exposures.

What has happened over the last decade is the 500px phenomenon, where noob landscapers all have acquired the same lenses, the same tripods, the same cameras, and the SAME, exact neutral density filters, and they go to the same,identical waterfalls, and shoot the same boring crap with 30-second exposures, as a way to "build more water volume" by showing 30 seconds' worth, or one full minute's worth of flow as a big, fuzzy, distorted blurry mess of water. It's become a hardware-caused cliche that is just about as tiresome as selective color. When used on ocean water, the effect is even worse...flat, formless, single-tone expanses of blah. No waves...just flat, painted-looking expanses of...nothing...

There is a range, a gamut, between the ultra-fast speeds that freeze every single little micro-droplet, in the 1/16,000 to 1/2000 second range (and which often looks VERY ugly and weird!!); good stoppage in the 1/1000 to 1/350 range; then there is wide range where most motion is stopped, yet there is still some blurring that is very subtle, yet which helps to show the water is indeed moving, say 1/250 to 1/50 second; at slower speeds in the 1/40 to 1/8 second the overall feeling is of movement yet with the actual character of how the water flows over the rocks preserved; below 1/8 second, the water becomes more and more "in-motion", down to perhaps 1 second. As the seconds mount up, the actual nature and character of the water's flow and movement becomes more and more distorted and inaccurate. By 30 seconds, the nature of the water appears highly artificial, and on really long time exposures, the effect is decidedly cheesy, in most cases. Keep in mind, in the USA, the most-popular wall painting is Dogs Playing Poker. More copies of that have been sold than of any other "painting". So, tastes vary, tremendously, when "art" is the subject at hand.

There are different ways to approach waterfalls and moving water, with the lowest-common-denominator idea today often being the idea that that using a 10-stop ND filter will somehow make every landscape seem somehow more dramatic, but again, it's really kind of a cheesy hardware crutch that many noobs become enamored of. Like buying a "prime lens" and shooting everything "wide-open" But whatever, right? If you can do it, then do it! Right? Shoot everything at f/1.8! Get that awesome bokeh! Slap on that Big Stopper and make some Instant Art!

It may be a 'crutch' for 'noobs', but my guess is the 'noobs' are still learning. Who knows, maybe they'll learn how to use their camera better, become a better photographer, and, in the end, learn what makes a good photograph.

It's easy for professionals to make fun of novices, but that doesn't make it right. Professionals should be teaching, instead of laughing.

 

[jsecordphoto]

It may be a 'crutch' for 'noobs', but my guess is the 'noobs' are still learning. Who knows, maybe they'll learn how to use their camera better, become a better photographer, and, in the end, learn what makes a good photograph.

It's easy for professionals to make fun of novices, but that doesn't make it right. Professionals should be teaching, instead of laughing.

That one hit a little close to home? I don't like it when anybody is maliciously laughing at somebody just starting out (except for the new photographer aka katie kit-lens who starts taking on weddings after a month with a camera- I laugh at them all the time), but why is it that you think any professional "should" be teaching? How is it their responsibility?

 

[waday]

It may be a 'crutch' for 'noobs', but my guess is the 'noobs' are still learning. Who knows, maybe they'll learn how to use their camera better, become a better photographer, and, in the end, learn what makes a good photograph.

It's easy for professionals to make fun of novices, but that doesn't make it right. Professionals should be teaching, instead of laughing.

That one hit a little close to home? I don't like it when anybody is maliciously laughing at somebody just starting out (except for the new photographer aka katie kit-lens who starts taking on weddings after a month with a camera- I laugh at them all the time), but why is it that you think any professional "should" be teaching? How is it their responsibility?

Years ago as an intern, I was in a situation where a little help would have avoided a mistake from the company. Instead of pointing out my error, the superiors didn't say anything and 'made fun' because 'I was new and learning the ropes'. They weren't laughing in the end when they realized that the mistake they made fun of went out the door to a client. Whoops. I think I actually got an apology, but who knows. It was a while ago.

I guess I'm just a nice person that likes to help out. I'm sorry if that's not you.