Shutter speed and water : Example

[Steve Axford]

Agreed totally steve - I took the long exposure first then thought otherwise.
Another example of this is some of the icelandic waterfalls I've shot - I ended up taking some at F2.8 ISO800 or so to get a 1/2000 shutter speed to freeze the motion.

It's good to try both to see which works best. Also the shutter speed can be important. I sec gives a different result to 6 secs.

[pembo260]

nice tip! great pics too..

[reefbuilder]

Very good example , great for newbies like me.

[Thomp]

Great examples and great photos too Shows that you don't always need a long exposure when capturing flowing water. Really like the detail in the first one.

[CarolTas]

Thanks for showing. It's good to see the difference using the slower shutter speed.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks guys - I hope the challenge went well for everyone this week!

[chrisprendergast]

Nice piece of handy info for the newbies out there trying to get their head around shutter speeds and freeze and blur motion good job mate

[simonw]

Wow! what a difference a second makes!! 2 different shots with completely different moods. Thanks for showing us!

[JanOD]

I'm so new to photography, I didn't even know that the settings on your camera could make this kind of a difference! It's good to learn what is possible. It helps me in setting goals for the future, (though this is way down the track for me). I've found this thread very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it!

[Dylan & Marianne]

no worries Jan & Simon

[paullivo]

Nice photos. Alway wonderful to see side by side comparative photos showing techniques.

[juliem]

As a newbie I was so inspired by these photos. It sent me scurrying out to the backyard trying the different settings.
Thank you so much for this!!
It gives this newbie a clearer understanding.
Julie

[altclick]

Nice example of shutter speed.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks guys - hope you have similar results in your experimentations

[drako4]

Hello,

Thank you so much for the post of your photos. I am very much a newbie and I am trying to take everything in. The photos are beautiful and showing the settings was a great help to me. I was able to see how you can capture the same image but in 2 very different ways.....

Cheers,
Carrie

[Othrelos]

"Isn't anyone going to comment that this is one case where slow, milky water is probably a mistake. All the power is gone. Milky water is great for many situations, but not this one. No criticism is intended as this is still a good example of what happens."

I thoroughly agree with this, the image loses it's dramatic impact with the water completely blurred, personally I find silken smooth water to detract aesthetically from many images that would have otherwise been much better. I like things to have texture, texture is an important descriptive aspect of the character of an object. Skin has texture, The ground has texture, so why do people blur the hell out of water?...if the same thing could be done with the ground I'm sure there would be people doing it. I usually stick to the 1 second to 1/8th shutter speeds so there is some motion blur, but the water maintains some of it's texture.

[Dylan & Marianne]

orthrelos, whether you like one image or the other depends on what you're trying to capture and is subjective.(and that's not what the thread is about)
On that day I was undecided as to whether I wanted to capture just the raw power, or go for the more surreal looking image that you know is not and cannot be what the eye sees.
For this kind of very rapid moving water, my experience has been that the 'in between' exposures you're talking about end up looking exactly that - in between with neither reality or artistry depicted (that's my opinion though). Ive found the kind of exposure lengths you're talking about work really well for wave motion, when there are subtle splashes that you try to leave trailing a little.
There's no one rule fits all and the purpose of this thread was to show the huge difference one variable on a DSLR can make. For completeness sake, I'll put in an image for the exposure length you're talking about :

this one for instance was 0.2 seconds



and this one was 60 seconds

[William]

Thought I'd chuck this one in as well , Was taken hand held @1/15th of a sec , ISO 100 f5.6, No filters , 24-105 f4 L Image stabiliser "ON" , Just to show the difference in water movement

[ElizabethAtkinson]

Excellent - thanks for providing this. I kept looking and looking at the photos and I really don't know which one I prefer; they are both wonderful in different ways. I think I will keep coming back to them, it's frustrating me I just can't make up my mnd.

[Dylan & Marianne]

lol arthur - I think you see much with your third photographic eye but yes, this was meant as an example thread of shutter speed not of artistic interpretation