Slow or no?

[SquarePeg]

Which do you prefer? Also c&c welcome.

This is Sabbaday Falls a very popular spot off the Kancamagus Hwy in the NH White Mountains which is one of my all time favorite places to be. These were hand held no Nd filter, Xt2 with the 18-55 at 21mm. The slow shutter was a 1 sec exposure at f/22, ISO 320. The other was at 1.500, f/4.5, ISO 4000

Slow
Sabbaday by SharonCat..., on Flickr

No
Filling the pool by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[Tropicalmemories]

Both nice, but I prefer the 1/500 exposure image. I think the sharper water looks more interesting as it shows more details of the turbulence and flow

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Wow, that’s an amazing handheld 1 second shot. I don’t see any camera shake. My vote is that one.

 

[danbob6]

My vote is for the second one also. Shame about the people in the upper right of the image.

 

[smoke665]

Beautiful spot! I know it's not, but the leaning rock face really messed with me. I kept wanting to tilt my screen. LOL personally I prefer the slow, because it seems to have just a tad more richer color, detail in the shadows and less noise. Also less people in the slow.

 

[snowbear]

I like both. I really prefer the slow, silky water but sometimes the water stopping fast shutter is good, especially with things like close ups of fountains.

 

[crf8]

#2


FB.me/CRFinTN Facebook
www.flickr.com/crf8/

 

[paigew]

I prefer the slow! My c&c is that the wb is too cool. What a gorgeous location and shot!!

 

[Designer]

#2

 

[Jeff15]

Number two for me.....................

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

#1 for me, even though usually I don't like slow speed water.

 

[Derrel]

I preferred the way the water looks in the shot that was made at 1/500 of a second. I preferred to see a little bit more of the character of the water flow, which is up skewered pretty much in the cotton candy look that one second gives a stream of this volume and velocity.

 

[SquarePeg]

Wow, that’s an amazing handheld 1 second shot. I don’t see any camera shake. My vote is that one.

Thanks. I did have a railing to steady my body a bit but not in a spot I could rest the camera or my arms. I took about 10 of these 1 second shots from this angle and this was the only one that was really any good.

My vote is for the second one also. Shame about the people in the upper right of the image.

Yeah - I tried briefly to remove them but it was more complicated than I could manage quickly so I left them there. If I decide to print it I’ll out some effort into it and make them disappear.

 

[SquarePeg]

Both nice, but I prefer the 1/500 exposure image. I think the sharper water looks more interesting as it shows more details of the turbulence and flow

Thanks. I lean toward that one as well.

Beautiful spot! I know it's not, but the leaning rock face really messed with me. I kept wanting to tilt my screen. LOL personally I prefer the slow, because it seems to have just a tad more richer color, detail in the shadows and less noise. Also less people in the slow.

I struggled straightening this one because nothing was level. I used the camera level when shooting but may have been off by a bit. In the end I used the pool of water and the railings to straighten it. it could probably go a smidge in the other direction and be correct but then the slopes rocks make it look off.

I like both. I really prefer the slow, silky water but sometimes the water stopping fast shutter is good, especially with things like close ups of fountains.

Thanks!

#2


FB.me/CRFinTN Facebook
www.flickr.com/crf8/

Thanks for the input!

I prefer the slow! My c&c is that the wb is too cool. What a gorgeous location and shot!!

Thanks I appreciate the feedback. I do tend to prefer a cooler wb. I shot this using the Fuji Velvia film simulation which I think has a slightly cooler wb than the straight Fuji look. This is a jpeg that I lifted the shadows a bit and also used a preset filter in Snapseed app that may have cooled it off a bit.

This location is gorgeous and so easy to get to. It can barely be called a hike. It’s really a mostly paved handicapped accessible trail that is less than half a mile from the road to get to the bottom of the falls.

 

[SquarePeg]

#2

Thanks for your opinion. I tend to agree.

Number two for me.....................

Thanks!

#1 for me, even though usually I don't like slow speed water.

I typically don’t take the slow waterfall photos but it was dark enough that I could get away with it with no filter so seemed like I ought to try it. I was surprised how well the slow one came out. I didn’t expect to get anything usable below 1/60.

I preferred the way the water looks in the shot that was made at 1/500 of a second. I preferred to see a little bit more of the character of the water flow, which is up skewered pretty much in the cotton candy look that one second gives a stream of this volume and velocity.

I agree and I think somewhere in the middle of the two would have been perfect but none of the 15 or 30 second shots I took came out sharp at this angle. I have a few different views at other speeds where the water came out less white. If I go back there in fall with my tripod and the light is the same I’ll try a 30 second shot.