Blog
Water - Blur or not to blur that is the question.
I do enjoy this photography game but one aspect I don't like is how it is often affected by fashion. Now I don't mean "fashion" as in the clothes industry, although that holds no interest for me. I mean an aspect of photography or a method that is - in fashion and is purveyed by many "experts" as THE way to do or go about something. A case in point is moving water and how to capture it.
If you look in any photographic periodical you will see countless images of coasts or beaches where the sea has been reduced to a milky mist by the use of long exposure times; fine the first couple of times you see such a shot but in my opinion it has been done to death. Quite frankly I am getting a bit sick of the theme. However, there are plenty of "experts" out there who are preaching that not only is it the proper way to record the sea but also the only way to do it, if you want to have an acceptable image at the end of the day. I read one quoted as saying unless the water is blurred it is "messy".
There are specialist photographers who record watersports and have no option, as short exposure times are essential and with that comes "frozen" water and spray. But actually that contributes to the image because sharp water implies power and (peversely) movement. Why? Because we recognise that water captured above the main surface in a wave or a splash has to come down and is therefore moving. If you consider images of storm waves battering a sea wall, all the impact would be lost if the exposure was so long that the waves blurred into a mist.
Of course there is the middle ground compromise; a waterfall being an example. Here exposure times that produces frozen or misty water can work, as does that in between time (~ 0.5 to 1 sec?) that gives the "ribbon" effect. It all depends on the impression you are trying to give to the viewer.
As with most photgraphic subjects, there is no "right" way to go about things and when the current fashion is being touted as being just that, it really does annoy me. Then again, I've never been a dedicated follower of fashion.
If you look in any photographic periodical you will see countless images of coasts or beaches where the sea has been reduced to a milky mist by the use of long exposure times; fine the first couple of times you see such a shot but in my opinion it has been done to death. Quite frankly I am getting a bit sick of the theme. However, there are plenty of "experts" out there who are preaching that not only is it the proper way to record the sea but also the only way to do it, if you want to have an acceptable image at the end of the day. I read one quoted as saying unless the water is blurred it is "messy".
There are specialist photographers who record watersports and have no option, as short exposure times are essential and with that comes "frozen" water and spray. But actually that contributes to the image because sharp water implies power and (peversely) movement. Why? Because we recognise that water captured above the main surface in a wave or a splash has to come down and is therefore moving. If you consider images of storm waves battering a sea wall, all the impact would be lost if the exposure was so long that the waves blurred into a mist.
Of course there is the middle ground compromise; a waterfall being an example. Here exposure times that produces frozen or misty water can work, as does that in between time (~ 0.5 to 1 sec?) that gives the "ribbon" effect. It all depends on the impression you are trying to give to the viewer.
As with most photgraphic subjects, there is no "right" way to go about things and when the current fashion is being touted as being just that, it really does annoy me. Then again, I've never been a dedicated follower of fashion.
03/01/2013