Milky or Not Milky Waterfall?

[David]

Here's a couple of photos from my local dene yesterday. I couldn't get to the same spot as the original photo because of the height of the water.

 

As I promised I tried 1 without the milky effect and one with, to see which was preferred. I may not have got the 'without milk' right with regards shutter speed (too fast maybe?)

 

The Burn was more of a river after the very heavy rain the day before and the water was very dirty but I don't think its too bad at the waterfall compared to higher up the burn.

 

 

[Leon]

milky!!

[David]

And here is the burn showing how fast and angry is was

 

 

 

[David]

A fellow milk lover mrwall

[Black Pearl]

It's hard to say in this instance because some waterfall compositions work better using long exposures and some with the water frozen using a very high shutter speed.

Interesting experiment though.

[Guest]

There is a place for all interpretations

 

Milky just watch you don't lose the highlights (looks fine in your first picture)

Slow shutter - to give some impression of movement how slow depends on conditions etc. I start at 1/6th usually.

Fast - freeze the action - I think this works well if you get in really close.

 

Of your two I prefer the milky one.

[colinb]

Again I think it is more about composition than either/or.

Here you are just showing us a 'waterfall' and whilst this is just an experiment, for me it would depend of the whole image/scene as to what works or doesn't. Effects like this should enhance a scene not be the scene?

[ChrisLumix]

A Dummy's memory: Brief History Of Photographing Water..

 

When I first took a serious interest in photography in the 1970s I was an avid reader of the photographic magazines. One thing that cropped up time and time again, was the photography of water. This ranged from 'freezing' droplets of water at a shutter speed of 1/1000 second or faster, to introducing 'motion blur' into flowing water (variable according to conditions but the consensus seemed to be around 1/15 or 1/30 second). THERE WAS NO MENTION OR CONCEPT OF MILKY WATER BACK THEN!!!!!

 

[rant]

Now IF 'milky' water had been introduced as a THIRD concept, in other words a different way of 'freezing' water, then all would be well and good. I might even try it from time to time! But that's not what has happened. What's happened is that 'milky' water has REPLACED motion blur, so now we only have the two extremes of 'freezing water', either with a very fast or a very slow shutter speed. The idea of motion blur has seemingly vanished, and that's what has really got my goat, not the concept of milkiness in itself.

[/rant]

 

As to the two pictures above : I'm not entirely sure that they fit the two options. The "milky" shot isn't like the average milky shot we see, and the motion blur isn't quite blurred enough (too fast a speed in both cases?). I prefer the second, but I think I would prefer it just a little more blurred. I don't hate the first shot.

 

Sorry, I've rambled on quite enough.

[David]

All valid and interesting points made. Thanks guys.

 

Colin we are on the same wavelength, like I said on the Castle Eden Burn shot I wasn't trying to show the motion of the water I was after that 'arty' look that it brings, so in effect trying to enhance the shot. I think for the original photo the burn was flowing quite slowly over the rocks and to freeze it, or even blur it wouldn't have had the same impact.

 

And thanks Chris for the historical aspect. Although just because something is not traditional I don't think it should be ruled out. However, going back to Colin's point, if it enhances the overall scene then that can only be good. I think there is a place in photography for all 3, although I have never thought milky effects are representative of the motion of water, merely a pleasant and quite artistic look.

[ChrisLumix]

All valid and interesting points made. Thanks guys.

 

Colin we are on the same wavelength, like I said on the Castle Eden Burn shot I wasn't trying to show the motion of the water I was after that 'arty' look that it brings, so in effect trying to enhance the shot. I think for the original photo the burn was flowing quite slowly over the rocks and to freeze it, or even blur it wouldn't have had the same impact.

 

And thanks Chris for the historical aspect. Although just because something is not traditional I don't think it should be ruled out. However, going back to Colin's point, if it enhances the overall scene then that can only be good. I think there is a place in photography for all 3, although I have never thought milky effects are representative of the motion of water, merely a pleasant and quite artistic look.

 

Agreed. It's just you see lots of milky shots, but I can't remember when I last saw a true motion blur shot - that's why I said one seems to have replaced the other.

[David]

Agreed. It's just you see lots of milky shots, but I can't remember when I last saw a true motion blur shot - that's why I said one seems to have replaced the other.

 

 

Also agreed and while Its good to experiment and try new things out and be creative it is also important not to lose the knowledge and skills that have got us to this point.

[David]

Just for interest I took them at:

 

Milky - ISO 100, F 25, Exp 0.62 sec, Nikkor 18-55mm kit zoom lens @22mm

 

Not milky - ISO 100, F 5.6, Exp 1/30 sec,  Nikkor 18-55mm kit zoom lens @22mm

[ChrisLumix]

Just for interest I took them at:

 

Milky - ISO 100, F 25, Exp 0.62 sec, Nikkor 18-55mm kit zoom lens @22mm

 

Not milky - ISO 100, F 5.6, Exp 1/30 sec,  Nikkor 18-55mm kit zoom lens @22mm

 

Interesting - those are speeds which would normally guarantee the results you were looking for. Perhaps #1 needed 1 second (you'd have probably needed ND), and #2 1/15 second. You weren't far out, anyway! (Actually, having another look at your pictures, I think the second one does succeed - I'm certainly getting a sense of moving water).

[David]

Unfortunately I had cleaned my filters before I went out and forgot to put them back in my bag so I didn't have that option. On a personal level I am happy with #1 and think more would overpower the shot but I should have taken #2 slightly slower to get what I consider a better representation of movement.

 

I think moving water is such a tricky subject that debates like this will go on as they always have. But thanks for the input and keep those traditions alive and pass them on, its one thing to be artistic and creative but we should never lose the skills or knowledge of true photography