Should waterfalls go with the flow?

[jsecordphoto]

I like to help people, just thought it was funny how personally you took his statement.

 

[waday]

I like to help people, just thought it was funny how personally you took his statement.

It's one of those days for me. Haha.

Better watch out!

 

[Actinia]

Since I started the thread on the topic of waterfalls, and others have been commenting on the amateur and the professional approach, let me tell you where I come from.

I spent my professional life as a lecturer in Animal Biology and Conservation. To help with this I took many pictures of various animals, as well as plants and habitats. There were all taken to be a matter of record without thinking of any 'artistic' or other merits. So long as they were a good depiction of the subject that is all that mattered.

Now I am retired (as my signature below says) after fifty years taking photographs, I am now trying to learn to be a photographer. I have posted a number of photos on this forum specifically with an invitation for comment and criticism. Some have attracted no comments, but several have. Of these, some has been positive, and some negative, and most have been helpful. I shall probably not have another fifty years taking pictures, but I hope to improve what I do in what years I have ahead.

 

[Braineack]

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...

you need to start nominating photos of the month. the last few months have been dominated by long exposure water shots. in fact, this month has 3 already.

 

[Derrel]

I like to help people, just thought it was funny how personally you took his statement.

Yeah, well, at one time selective color was hugely popular with hobbyist photographers who were for the most part, early in their involvement with photography. A "new" technology made selective coloring popular. Trends and fads come and go, and currently we are in the midst of a surge in sales of heavy neutral density filters, many of which are VERY expensive. A clever name like "Big Stopper" does not automatically mean that slapping that thing on and exposing all types of subjects ten stops longer than normal automatically, intrinsically leads to better photos.

Same with the six-stop "LIttle Stopper"...check out their web page and look at the cliche samples. Big Stopper and Little Stopper long exposure filters from LEE Filters.

What's happening again is people reaching for a specific tool that creates a cliche-type effect, and using that tool over and over, somehow unaware that they've fallen into a rut of using 10-stops-longer-than-otherwise-possible exposure times, as if it's some sort of guarantee of artistric success. When, truth be told, there are many people who think that the overly-blurred waterfall look is gauche; you know, a lot like selective color was, or like Dutch tilt, or like massively exaggerated "negative space" in compositions.

Anyway, I listed out a whole range of shutter speeds, and how they tend to, in general, render waterfalls. But apparently there are some people who favor the cotton candy + 10 stops more time end of the range. Again, I listed out a number of typical ways that time value used alters waterfall renderings, and mostly what I'm getting back is bitching with zero useful feedback or contribution of any kind except, "But I LIKE it MY way!!!"

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."